ArticleEuropean radiology2013
Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.
Article in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
70 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 220 citations in OpenAlex.
- Italian guidelines for the use of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening programmes: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT of the European guidelines.La Radiologia medica · 2026Guideline
- Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).La Radiologia medica · 2017Guideline
- Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs.European radiology · 2019Trial
- Accuracy and reading time for six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women with mammographically negative dense breasts.European radiology · 2017Trial
- False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.European radiology · 2016Trial
- Workload reduction of digital breast tomosynthesis screening using artificial intelligence and synthetic mammography: a simulation study.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Change in Indications and Outcomes for Stereotactic Biopsy Following Transition from Full Field Digital Mammography + Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Full Field Synthetic Mammography + Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading.European radiology · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Margins of Breast Cancer Tumors by Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Deep Learning: A Preliminary Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Machine learning and new insights for breast cancer diagnosis.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Review
- Use of artificial intelligence in breast surgery: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2024Review
- History of Mammography: Analysis of Breast Imaging Diagnostic Achievements over the Last Century.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Ultrasound Versus Digital Mammography Plus Ultrasound for Screening Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Associating Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) in Clinical Practice in Cases of Women with Dense Breast Tissue.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2021Review
- High-Throughput Proteomic Profiling of Nipple Aspirate Fluid from Breast Cancer Patients Compared with Non-Cancer Controls: A Step Closer to Clinical Feasibility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Article
- Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: AnEClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare double readings when interpreting full field digital mammography (2D) and tomosynthesis (3D) during mammographic screening.
methodsA prospective, Ethical Committee approved screening study is underway. During the first year 12,621 consenting women underwent both 2D and 3D imaging. Each examination was independently interpreted by four radiologists under four reading modes: Arm A-2D; Arm B-2D + CAD; Arm C-2D + 3D; Arm D-synthesised 2D + 3D. Examinations with a positive score by at least one reader were discussed at an arbitration meeting before a final management decision. Paired double reading of 2D (Arm A + B) and 2D + 3D (Arm C + D) were analysed. Performance measures were compared using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for inter-reader performance heterogeneity (P < 0.05).
resultsPre-arbitration false-positive scores were 10.3 % (1,286/12,501) and 8.5 % (1,057/12,501) for 2D and 2D + 3D, respectively (P < 0.001). Recall rates were 2.9 % (365/12,621) and 3.7 % (463/12,621), respectively (P = 0.005). Cancer detection was 7.1 (90/12,621) and 9.4 (119/12,621) per 1,000 examinations, respectively (30 % increase, P < 0.001); positive predictive values (detected cancer patients per 100 recalls) were 24.7 % and 25.5 %, respectively (P = 0.97). Using 2D + 3D, double-reading radiologists detected 27 additional invasive cancers (P < 0.001).
conclusionDouble reading of 2D + 3D significantly improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis-based screening was successfully implemented in a large prospective screening trial. • Double reading of tomosynthesis-based examinations significantly reduced false-positive interpretations. • Double reading of tomosynthesis significantly increased the detection of invasive cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.