Trial reportEuropean radiology2018
Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?
Trial report 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, 28 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
- 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
- AAPM/EFOMP TG282 versus dance dosimetry for digital breast tomosynthesis in the assessment pathway of a breast screening program.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Review
- The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Clinical and imaging modality factors impacting radiological interpretation of breast screening in young women with neurofibromatosis type 1.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- Breast biopsy techniques in a global setting-clinical practice review.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2023Review
- The ability of digital breast tomosynthesis to reduce additional examinations in older women.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: integration of image modalities enhances deep learning-based breast mass classification.European radiology · 2020Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.Radiology · 2019Review
- The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.Cancer management and research · 2019Review
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update on Technology, Evidence, and Clinical Practice.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, IncArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy of use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with standard digital mammography (DM) workup views in the breast cancer assessment clinic. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Tomosynthesis Assessment Clinic trial (TACT), conducted between 16 October 2014 and 19 April 2016, is an ethics-approved, monocenter, multireader, multicase split-plot reading study. After written informed consent was obtained, 144 females (age > 40 years) who were recalled to the assessment clinic were recruited into TACT. These cases (48 cancers) were randomly allocated for blinded review of (1) DM workup and (2) DBT, both in conjunction with previous DM from the screening examination. Fifteen radiologists of varying experience levels in the Australia BreastScreen Program were included in this study, wherein each radiologist read 48 cases (16 cancers) in 3 non-overlapping blocks. Diagnostic accuracy was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). The receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to determine radiologists' performances.
resultsUse of DBT (AUC = 0.927) led to improved performance of the radiologists (z = 2.62, p = 0.008) compared with mammography workup (AUC = 0.872). Similarly, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of DBT (0.93, 0.75, 0.64, 0.96) were higher than those of the workup (0.90, 0.56, 0.49, 0.92). Most radiologists (80%) performed better with DBT than standard workup. Cancerous lesions on DBT appeared more severe (U = 33,172, p = 0.02) and conspicuous (U = 24,207, p = 0.02). There was a significant reduction in the need for additional views (χ
conclusionsDBT has the potential to increase diagnostic accuracy and simplify the assessment process in the breast cancer assessment clinic. KEY POINTS: • Use of DBT in the assessment clinic results in increased diagnostic accuracy. • Use of DBT in the assessment clinic improves performance of radiologists and also increases the confidence in their decisions. • DBT may reduce the need for additional views, ultrasound imaging, and biopsy.
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.