ArticleEuropean radiology2018
One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more?
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting: a meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2020Pooled it
- An Exploration of Discrepant Recalls Between AI and Human Readers of Malignant Lesions in Digital Mammography Screening.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting?European radiology · 2022Article
- Impact of artificial intelligence support on accuracy and reading time in breast tomosynthesis image interpretation: a multi-reader multi-case study.European radiology · 2021Article
- Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms: a quantitative assessment.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
- Comparison of two-view versus single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D-mammography in breast cancer surveillance imaging.PloS one · 2021Article
- Male patients with unilateral breast symptoms: an optimal imaging approach.European radiology · 2020Article
- Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2019Article
- Can we reduce the workload of mammographic screening by automatic identification of normal exams with artificial intelligence? A feasibility study.European radiology · 2019Article
- The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.Cancer management and research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1-10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were computed.
resultsOn average, 1v-DBT was non-inferior to any of the other protocols in terms of JAFROC figure-of-merit, area under ROC curve, sensitivity or specificity (p>0.391). While readers inexperienced with 1v-DBT screening improved their sensitivity when adding more images (69-79 %, p=0.019), experienced readers showed similar sensitivity (76 %) and specificity (70 %) between 1v-DBT and 2v-DM+2v-DBT (p=0.482). Subanalysis by lesion type and breast density showed no difference among modalities.
conclusionDetection performance with 1v-DBT is not statistically inferior to 2v-DM or to 2v-DM+2v-DBT; its use as a stand-alone modality might be sufficient for readers experienced with this protocol. KEY POINTS: • One-view breast tomosynthesis is not inferior to two-view digital mammography. • One-view DBT is not inferior to 2-view DM plus 2-view DBT. • Training may lead to 1v-DBT being sufficient for screening.
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.