Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28540564›Full record

GuidelineLa Radiologia medica2017

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).

Daniela Bernardi, Paolo Belli, Eva Benelli, Beniamino Brancato, Lauro Bucchi, Massimo Calabrese, Luca A Carbonaro, Francesca Caumo, Beatrice Cavallo-Marincola, Paola Clauser and 22 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in La Radiologia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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
NCT06854887 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

The Added Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Over Mammography in Local Tumor Staging in Patients With BIRADS 4 or 5 Lesions

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled64ConditionsDigital Breast TomosynthesisArmsdigital breast tomosynthesis and mammography
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

32 authors.

Daniela BernardiU.O. Senologia Clinica e Screening Mammografico, Dipartimento di Radiologia, APSS, Centro per i Servizi Sanitari, Pal. C, viale Verona, 38123, Trento, Italy.
Paolo BelliDipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Eva BenelliZadig Scientific Communication Agency, Via Arezzo 21, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Beniamino BrancatoStruttura Complessa di Senologia Clinica, Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica (ISPO), Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Florence, Italy.
Lauro BucchiRomagna Cancer Registry, Romagna Cancer Institute (IRST) IRCCS, Via Piero Maroncelli 40, Meldola, 47014, Forlì, Italy.
Massimo CalabreseUOC Senologia Diagnostica, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Luca A CarbonaroUnit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, San Donato Milanese, 20097, Milan, Italy.
Francesca CaumoUOSD Breast Unit ULSS 20, Piazza Lambranzi 1, 37142, Verona, Italy.
Beatrice Cavallo-MarincolaDipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche, Oncologiche ed Anatomo-patologiche, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza Università di Roma, Viale Regina Elena 324, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Paola ClauserDivision of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Chiara FedatoRegional Screening Coordinating Centre, Veneto Region, Venice, Italy.
Alfonso FrigerioRegional Reference Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, Turin, Italy.
Vania GalliMammography Screening Centre, Local Health Authority, Modena, Italy.
Livia GiordanoEpidemiology Unit, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Turin, Italy.
Paolo Giorgi RossiInterinstitutional Epidemiology Unit, AUSL Reggio Emilia, and Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Paola GolinelliMedical Physics Service, Local Health Authority, Modena, Italy.
Doralba MorroneStruttura Complessa di Senologia Clinica, Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica (ISPO), Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Florence, Italy.
Giovanna MariscottiRadiologia 1U, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Università di Torino, A. O. U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Via Genova 3, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Laura MartincichU.O. Radiodiagnostica, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO, IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142, km 3.95, Candiolo, 10060, Turin, Italy.
Stefania MontemezziDAI Patologia e Diagnostica, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Carlo NaldoniDepartment of Health, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy.
Adriana PaduosEpidemiology Unit, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Turin, Italy.
Pietro PanizzaU.O. Radiologia Senologica, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Federica PediconiDipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche, Oncologiche ed Anatomo-patologiche, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza Università di Roma, Viale Regina Elena 324, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Fiammetta QuerciDepartment of Prevention, Screening Centre, Local Health Authority, Sassari, Italy.
Antonio RizzoPathology Department, Local Health Authority, Asolo, Treviso, Italy.
Gianni SaguattiSenology Unit, Local Health Authority, Bologna, Italy.
Alberto TagliaficoDepartment of Experimental Medicine, DIMES, Institute of Anatomy, University of Genova, Via de Toni 14, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Rubina M TrimboliDepartment of Biomedical Science for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Marco ZappaUOC Epidemiologia Clinica, Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica (ISPO), Florence, Italy.
Chiara ZuianiInstitute of Radiology, University of Udine, Piazzale S. M. della Misericordia 15, 33100, Udine, Italy.
Francesco SardanelliUnit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, San Donato Milanese, 20097, Milan, Italy. francesco.sardanelli@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6545-9427

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.

Indexed as

MammographyBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansItalyBreast cancerDigital breast tomosynthesisMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID28540564
PMCPMC5596055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.