ArticleIrish journal of medical science2018
Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set?
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Architectural distortion outcome: digital breast tomosynthesis-detected versus digital mammography-detected.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS AND
objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine if the synthetic C view acquired at digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would give adequate information to confirm a malignancy and could obviate the need to review all the tomosynthesis image data set.
methodsAll patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer recalled from screening mammograms between May and September 2016 were included for review. For each patient, the screening 2D mammogram, the synthetic C view, and the DBT images were reviewed by three breast radiologists and each assigned a BIRADS code. Any discrepancies were reviewed and resolved by consensus.
resultsA total of 92 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in this time period. Fourteen were excluded because they did not have DBT performed. Five women were recalled for evaluation of two lesions. In total, 83 lesions were assessed. In 27 cases, the BIRADS code remained unchanged in the three modalities. In 16 cases, the lesions appeared more concerning on C view and DBT that on the original mammogram but were not definitive for malignancy (BIRADS 4). In 29 cases, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned on C view and tomosynthesis but not on 2D. For 11 lesions, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned only on DBT. Four women had BIRADS 5 lesions seen on both the C view and DBT that were not seen on the screening 2D mammogram. One was multifocal.
conclusionWhile the synthetic C view gives additional information when compared to a screening 2D mammogram, the full DBT tomosynthesis data set needs to be reviewed to diagnose a breast malignancy.
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.