Trial reportEuropean radiology2019
Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs.
Trial report in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Impact of slab thickness in digital breast tomosynthesis on radiologists' diagnostic accuracy and interpretation time in women with breast cancer: a single-center retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Organizational impact of systemic implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis as a primary test for breast cancer screening in Italy.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading.European radiology · 2024Article
- Artificial-intelligence-enhanced synthetic thick slabs versus standard slices in digital breast tomosynthesis.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Incidence, mortality, and survival of hematological malignancies in Northern Italian patients: an update to 2020.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting?European radiology · 2022Article
- Optimization of Breast Tomosynthesis Visualization through 3D Volume Rendering.Journal of imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to be more sensitive than digital mammography, but it requires longer reading time. We retrospectively compared accuracy and reading times of a simplified protocol with 1-cm-thick slabs versus a standard protocol of slabs + 1-mm-spaced planes, both integrated with synthetic 2D.
methodsWe randomly selected 894 DBTs (including 12 cancers) from the experimental arm of the RETomo trial. DBTs were read by two radiologists to estimate specificity. A second set of 24 cancers (8 also present in the first set) mixed within 276 negative DBTs was read by two radiologists. In total, 28 cancers with 64 readings were used to estimate sensitivity. Radiologists read with both protocols separated by a 3-month washout. Only women that were positive at the screening reading were assessed. Variance was estimated taking into account repeated measures.
resultsSensitivity was 82.8% (53/64, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 67.2-92.2) and 90.6% (95% CI 80.2-95.8) with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. In the random screening setting, specificity was 97.9% (1727/1764, 95% CI 97.1-98.5) and 96.3% (95% CI 95.3-97.1), respectively. Inter-reader agreement was 0.68 and 0.54 with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. Median reading times with simplified protocol were 20% to 30% shorter than with standard protocol.
conclusionsA simplified protocol reduced reading time and false positives but may have a negative impact on sensitivity. KEY POINTS: • The adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in screening, more sensitive than mammography, could be limited by its potential effect on the radiologists' workload, i.e., increased reading time and fatigue. • A DBT simplified protocol with slab only, compared to a standard protocol (slab plus planes) both integrated with synthetic 2D, reduced time and false positives but had a negative impact on sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30737568What 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.