Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23673573›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2013

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study.

Fabienne Thibault, Clarisse Dromain, Catherine Breucq, Corinne S Balleyguier, Caroline Malhaire, Luc Steyaert, Anne Tardivon, Enrica Baldan, Harir Drevon

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fabienne ThibaultDepartment of Radiology, Institut Curie, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75248, Paris Cedex 05, France. fabienne.thibault@curie.net
Clarisse Dromain
Catherine Breucq
Corinne S Balleyguier
Caroline Malhaire
Luc Steyaert
Anne Tardivon
Enrica Baldan
Harir Drevon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the diagnostic performance of single-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) with that of dual-view mammography (MX); to assess the benefit of adding the craniocaudal (CC) mammographic view to BT, and of adding BT to MX plus breast ultrasound, considered to be the reference work-up.

methodsOne hundred and fifty-five consenting patients with unresolved mammographic and/or ultrasound findings or breast symptoms underwent conventional work-up plus mediolateral oblique-view BT of the affected breast. The final study set in 130 patients resulted in 55 malignant and 76 benign and normal cases. Seven breast radiologists rated the cases through five sequential techniques using a BIRADS-based scale: MX, MX + ultrasound, MX + ultrasound + BT, BT, BT + MX(CC). Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and performance of the techniques was assessed from the areas under ROC curves. The performance of BT and of BT + MX(CC) was tested versus MX; the performance of MX + ultrasound + BT tested versus MX + ultrasound.

resultsTomosynthesis was found to be non-inferior to mammography. BT + MX(CC) did not appear to be superior to MX, and MX + ultrasound + BT not superior to MX + ultrasound.

conclusionsOverall, none of the five techniques tested outperformed the others. Further clinical studies are needed to clarify the role of BT as a substitute for traditional work-up in the diagnostic environment. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis is a new adjunct to mammography and breast ultrasound. • We compared the diagnostic performance of these investigations in an experimental observer study. • Single-view breast tomosynthesis was confirmed as non-inferior to dual-view mammography. • None of the investigations (or combinations) tested outperformed the others. • Further prospective studies are needed to clarify precise role of tomosynthesis for diagnostic application.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMammographyMiddle AgedObserver VariationPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.