Trial reportEuropean radiology2015
Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study.
Trial report in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detecting Breast Cancer in the Diagnostic Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Korean journal of radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Accuracy and reading time for six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women with mammographically negative dense breasts.European radiology · 2017Trial
- Review
- The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy: a single-institution experience in Japan.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2021Review
- Detection of Microcalcifications in Spiral Breast Computed Tomography with Photon-Counting Detector Is Feasible: A Specimen Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Comparison of two-view versus single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D-mammography in breast cancer surveillance imaging.PloS one · 2021Article
- Comparing recall rates following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis to synthetic 2D images and digital mammography on women with breast-conserving surgery.European radiology · 2020Article
- Pros and cons for breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis - a review of the literature.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2020Review
- Can digital breast tomosynthesis improve identification of malignant calcifications?Radiological physics and technology · 2020Article
- Comparative analysis between synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for breast cancer detection and visibility.European journal of radiology open · 2020Article
- Initial Clinical Experience with Stationary Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Academic radiology · 2019Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.Radiology · 2019Review
- Visualizing microcalcifications in lumpectomy specimens: an exploration into the clinical potential of carbon nanotube-enabledBiomedical physics & engineering express · 2019Article
- A new breast tomosynthesis imaging method: Continuous Sync-and-Shoot - technical feasibility and initial experience.Acta radiologica open · 2019Article
- Synthesizing mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis.Physics in medicine and biology · 2019Article
- The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.Cancer management and research · 2019Review
- Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.European radiology · 2019Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Suspicious Calcifications From Various Populations: A Comparison With Full-field Digital Mammography.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare DBT and FFDM in the classification of microcalcification clusters (MCs) using BI-RADS.
methodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved study was undertaken in three centres. A total of 107 MCs evaluated with both DBT and FFDM were randomised for prospective reading by six experienced breast radiologists and classified using BI-RADS.
resultsThe benign/malignant ratio of MC was 66/41. Of 11/107 discordant results, DBT classified MCs as R2 whereas FFDM classified them as R3 in 9 and R4 in 2. Three of these (3/107 = 2.8%) were malignant; 8 (7.5%) were nonmalignant and were correctly classified as R2 on DBT but incorrectly classified as R3 on FFDM. Estimated sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 100% (95% CI: 91% to 100%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 86.7% to 98.5%) for FFDM and 91.1% (95% CI: 78.8% to 97.5%) and 100% (95% CI: 94.8% to 100%) for DBT. Overall intra- and interobserver agreements were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.61-0.84) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62-0.78).
conclusionsMost MCs are scored similarly on FFDM and DBT. Although a minority (11/107) of MCs are classified differently on FFDM (benign MC classified as R3) and DBT (malignant MC classified as R2), this may have clinical relevance. KEY POINTS: • The BI-RADS classification of MC differs for FFDM and DBT in 11/107 cases • DBT assigned lower BI-RADS classes compared to FFDM in 11 clusters • In 4/107 DBT may have missed some malignant and high-risk lesions • In 7/107 the 'underclassification' on DBT was correct, potentially avoiding unnecessary biopsies • DBT may miss a small proportion of malignant lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25163902What 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.