Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25554018›Full record

ReviewBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2015

Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.

T M Svahn, N Houssami, I Sechopoulos, S Mattsson

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 225 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Local Diagnostic Reference Levels in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

T M SvahnSchool of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: TonyMartinSvahn@gmail.com.
N HoussamiSchool of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, NSW, Australia.
I SechopoulosDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, 1701 Uppergate Drive Northeast, Suite 5018, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University, 1701 Uppergate Drive Northeast, Suite 5018, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, 1701 Uppergate Drive Northeast, Suite 5018, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
S MattssonMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
University of Sydney · AUEmory University · USLund University · SE

Funding

Image Quality Improvement and Breast Compression Reduction in Breast TomosynthesiR01CA163746 · NCI · RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN MED CTR · PI SECHOPOULOS, IOANNIS · 2012 to 2015
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA163746NCI NIH HHS R01CA163746
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined how radiation dose levels in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) differ from those used in 2-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Acquisition parameter settings and information on the average absorbed dose to the glandular tissues within the breasts were reviewed based on clinical studies that evaluated DBT and FFDM. Dose ratios (DDBT/DFFDM) were derived from imaging protocols, which included tomosynthesis in 1- or 2-views alone, and as an adjunct technique to FFDM. Stand-alone DBT was associated with a much lower to a slightly higher radiation dose compared to that of comparable FFDM units, as summarized in dose ratio ranges of 0.34-1.0 for 1-view DBT, and 0.68-1.17 for 2-view DBT. One of the lowest reported dose estimates was obtained using a photon-counting DBT unit (avg. 0.70 mGy/scan; range: 0.28-1.26 mGy). Breast doses for DBT combined with FFDM are summarized in dose ratio ranges of 1.03-1.5 for 1-view DBT plus FFDM, and 2.0-2.23 for 2-view DBT plus FFDM. In the latter of these settings, the dose was reduced by ∼45% when 2D-views, reconstructed from the DBT images ("synthetic 2D images"), were used as a substitute for FFDM. Stand-alone DBT operated at lower to slightly higher radiation doses in comparison to FFDM. For DBT combined with FFDM, radiation doses were elevated, at maximum by a factor ∼2 1/4 of that of FFDM alone. In this setting, a replacement of FFDM with synthetic 2D-views reduced the breast dose approximately by half, which has substantial implications for population screening programs.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyRadiation DosageRadiographic Image EnhancementRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedDigital breast tomosynthesisFull-field digital mammographyRadiation doses to the breast

Identifiers

PMID25554018
PMCPMC5064843
OpenAlexW2022975303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.