Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26943342›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2016

False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Kristina Lång, Matilda Nergården, Ingvar Andersson, Aldana Rosso, Sophia Zackrisson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03587259 (Innovation in Mammography), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT03587259 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Innovation in Mammography: Tomosynthesis Pathways

TypeinterventionalSponsorCancer Prevention and Research Institute, ItalyRan2018 to 2021Enrolled6,000ConditionsBreast CancerArmsTomosynthesis, 2D mammography
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Kristina LångDepartment of Medical Radiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Inga Marie Nilssons gata 49, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden. kristina.lang@med.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9250-1897
Matilda NergårdenDepartment of Medical Radiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Inga Marie Nilssons gata 49, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden.
Ingvar AnderssonDepartment of Medical Radiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Inga Marie Nilssons gata 49, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden.
Aldana RossoEpidemiology and Register Centre South, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 22, SE-221 85, Lund, Sweden.
Sophia ZackrissonDepartment of Medical Radiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Inga Marie Nilssons gata 49, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo analyse false positives (FPs) in breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (BT) vs. mammography (DM).

methodsThe Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) is a prospective population-based study comparing one-view BT to DM in screening. This study is based on the first half of the MBTST population (n = 7,500). Differences in FP recall rate, findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rate between cases recalled on BT alone, DM alone and BT+DM were analysed.

resultsThe FP recall rate was 1.7 % for BT alone (n = 131), 0.9 % for DM alone (n = 69) and 1.1 % for BT + DM (n = 81). The FP recall rate for BT alone was halved after the initial phase of the trial, stabilising at 1.5 %. BT doubled the recall of stellate distortions compared to DM (n = 64 vs. n = 33). There were fewer fibroadenomas and cysts, and the biopsy rate was slightly lower for FP recalled on BT alone compared to DM alone (15.3 % vs. 27.6 %: p = 0.037 and 33.8 % vs. 36.2 %; p = 0.641, respectively).

conclusionsFPs increased with BT screening mainly due to the recall of stellate distortions. The FP recall rate was still well within the European guidelines and showed evidence of a learning curve. Characterisation of rounded lesions was improved with BT. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis screening gave a higher false-positive recall rate than mammography • There was a decline in the false-positive recall rate for tomosynthesis • The recall due to stellate distortions simulating malignancy was doubled with tomosynthesis • Tomosynthesis found more radial and postoperative scar tissue than mammography • Tomosynthesis is better at characterising rounded lesions.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiopsyBreastBreast CystBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFibroadenomaHumansMammographyMiddle AgedProspective StudiesBreast cancerBreast tomosynthesisDiagnostic imagingDigital mammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID26943342
PMCPMC5052302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.