ArticleRadiology2016
Increased Cancer Detection Rate and Variations in the Recall Rate Resulting from Implementation of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis into a Population-based Screening Program.
Article in Radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 38 papers, 5 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 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
- Extending the Age Range in Mammography Screening: A Benefit-Risk Assessment from a Radiation Protection Perspective.RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin · 2026Pooled it
- Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Advances, Challenges, and Case-Based Insights.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Deep Learning in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.MedComm · 2025Review
- Traditional versus modern approaches to screening mammography: a comparison of computer-assisted detection for synthetic 2D mammography versus an artificial intelligence algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels for Mammography Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Contrast Enhance, Implants, Spot Compression, Magnification and Stereotactic Biopsy in Dubai Health Sector.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- 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
- Addressing Disparities Related to Access of Multimodality Breast Imaging Services Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Academic radiology · 2022Review
- Use of Artificial Intelligence for Reducing Unnecessary Recalls at Screening Mammography: A Simulation Study.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Reducing Unnecessary Biopsies Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound in Dense and Nondense Breasts.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis-based peritumoral radiomics approaches in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2022Article
- Deep learning in breast radiology: current progress and future directions.European radiology · 2021Review
- Optimization of the Radiation Dose of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Opportunistic Screening by Studying the Effect of Different Combinations of FFDM and DBT Views.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- Pros and cons for breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis - a review of the literature.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2020Review
- Comparison of radiation doses between diagnostic full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a clinical study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2020Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as a Breast Cancer Screening Tool for Women with Gynecologic Cancer.Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the recall and cancer detection rates (CDRs) at screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with those at screening with two-dimensional (2D) mammography and to evaluate variations in the recall rate (RR) according to patient age, risk factors, and breast density and among individual radiologists at a single U.S. academic medical center. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant prospective study with a retrospective cohort included 85 852 asymptomatic women who presented for breast cancer screening over a 3-year period beginning in 2011. A DBT unit was introduced into the existing 2D mammography screening program, and patients were assigned to the first available machine. Ten breast-subspecialized radiologists interpreted approximately 90% of the examinations. RRs were calculated overall and according to patient age, breast density, and individual radiologist. CDRs were calculated. Single and multiple mixed-effect logistic regression analyses, χ(2) tests, and Bonferroni correction were utilized, as appropriate.
resultsThe study included 5703 (6.6%) DBT examinations and 80 149 (93.4%) 2D mammography examinations. The DBT subgroup contained a higher proportion of patients with risk factors for breast cancer and baseline examinations. DBT was used to detect 54.3% more carcinomas (+1.9 per 1000, P < .0018) than 2D mammography. The RR was 7.51% for 2D mammography and 6.10% for DBT (absolute change, 1.41%; relative change, -18.8%; P < .0001). The DBT subgroup demonstrated a significantly lower RR for patients with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts and for patients in their 5th and 7th decades.
conclusionImplementing DBT into a U.S. breast cancer screening program significantly decreased the screening RR overall and for certain patient subgroups, while significantly increasing the CDR. These findings may encourage more widespread adoption and reimbursement of DBT and facilitate improved patient selection.
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.