ArticleEuropean radiology2013
Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
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 19 papers, 2 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting: a meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2020Guideline
- Article
- Malignancy Upgrade Rates of Radial Sclerosing Lesions at Breast Cancer Screening.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2021Article
- Comparison of two-view versus single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D-mammography in breast cancer surveillance imaging.PloS one · 2021Article
- A new breast tomosynthesis imaging method: Continuous Sync-and-Shoot - technical feasibility and initial experience.Acta radiologica open · 2019Article
- The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.Cancer management and research · 2019Review
- Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.Academic radiology · 2017Article
- The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in the breast assessment clinic: a review.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2017Review
- Imaging features and conspicuity of invasive lobular carcinomas on digital breast tomosynthesis.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- New diagnostic tools for breast cancer.Memo · 2017Review
- Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2016Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.Radiology · 2015Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis at screening assessment: are two views always necessary?The British journal of radiology · 2015Article
- Article
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis.European radiology · 2014Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis guided Near Infrared Spectroscopy: Volumetric estimates of fibroglandular fraction and breast density from tomosynthesis reconstructions.Biomedical physics & engineering expressArticle
- Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, IncReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical value of combining one-view mammography (cranio-caudal, CC) with the complementary view tomosynthesis (mediolateral-oblique, MLO) in comparison to standard two-view mammography (MX) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization.
methodsA free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) experiment was conducted independently by six breast radiologists, obtaining data from 463 breasts of 250 patients. Differences in mean lesion detection fraction (LDF) and mean lesion characterization fraction (LCF) were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare clinical performance of the combination of techniques to standard two-view digital mammography.
resultsThe 463 cases (breasts) reviewed included 258 with one to three lesions each, and 205 with no lesions. The 258 cases with lesions included 77 cancers in 68 breasts and 271 benign lesions to give a total of 348 proven lesions. The combination, DBT(MLO)+MX(CC), was superior to MX (CC+MLO) in both lesion detection (LDF) and lesion characterization (LCF) overall and for benign lesions. DBT(MLO)+MX(CC) was non-inferior to two-view MX for malignant lesions.
conclusionsThis study shows that readers' capabilities in detecting and characterizing breast lesions are improved by combining single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and single-view mammography compared to two-view digital mammography. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis is becoming adopted as an adjunct to mammography (MX) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion detection (overall and benign lesions) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in cancer detection • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion characterization (overall and benign lesions) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in characterization of malignant lesions.
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.