ArticleAcademic radiology2017
Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.
Article in Academic radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2020Pooled it
- Review
- The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- [Assessment of imaging performance of digital breast tomosynthesis based on systematic simulation].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2021Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis: sensitivity for cancer in younger symptomatic women.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Association of the imaging characteristics of desmoplasia on digital breast tomosynthesis and the Ki-67 proliferation index in invasive breast cancer.Croatian medical journal · 2021Article
- Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis: Is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Synthesizing mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis.Physics in medicine and biology · 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
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesThis study aimed to compare Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment of lesions in two-view digital mammogram (DM) to two-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) without DM. MATERIALS AND
methodsWith Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent, two-view DBTs were acquired from 134 subjects and the corresponding DMs were collected retrospectively. The study included 125 subjects with 61 malignant (size: 3.9-36.9 mm, median: 13.4 mm) and 81 benign lesions (size: 4.8-43.8 mm, median: 12.0 mm), and 9 normal subjects. The cases in the two modalities were read independently by six experienced Mammography Quality Standards Act radiologists in a fully crossed counterbalanced manner. The readers were blinded to the prevalence of malignant, benign, or normal cases and were asked to assess the lesions based on the BI-RADS lexicon. The ratings were analyzed by the receiver operating characteristic methodology.
resultsLesion conspicuity was significantly higher (P << .0001) and fewer lesion margins were considered obscured in DBT. The mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the six readers increased significantly (P = .0001) from 0.783 (range: 0.723-0.886) for DM to 0.911 (range: 0.884-0.936) for DBT. Of the 366 ratings for malignant lesions, 343 on DBT and 278 on DM were rated as BI-RADS 4a and above. Of the 486 ratings for benign lesions, 220 on DBT and 206 on DM were rated as BI-RADS 4a and above. On average, 17.8% (65 of 366) more malignant lesions and 2.9% (14 of 486) more benign lesions would be recommended for biopsy using DBT. The inter-radiologist variability was reduced significantly.
conclusionWith DBT alone, the BI-RADS assessment of breast lesions and inter-radiologist reliability were significantly improved compared to DM.
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.