ArticleRadiology2019
Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Simultaneously Acquired Digital Mammographic Images versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images.
Article in Radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection.European radiology · 2025Article
- Architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis mammograms in symptomatic breast clinics: what are the result outcomes?The British journal of radiology · 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
- Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?Journal of breast imaging · 2024Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of automated ACR BI-RADS breast density classification using deep convolutional neural networks.European radiology · 2023Article
- Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging.European radiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Lobular Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Synthesized 2D Mammography: A Multireader Study.Journal of imaging · 2021Article
- Optimization of the Radiation Dose of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Opportunistic Screening by Studying the Effect of Different Combinations of FFDM and DBT Views.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- Tumor-to-Gland Volume Ratio versus Tumor-to-Breast Ratio as Measured on CBBCT: Possible Predictors of Breast-Conserving Surgery.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
- Improving the Ability of Deep Neural Networks to Use Information from Multiple Views in Breast Cancer Screening.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2020Article
- Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.Radiology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to improve screening outcomes compared with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, little is known about differences in breast cancer conspicuity between DM and DBT or by mammographic view. Purpose To compare conspicuity of breast cancers at DM versus DBT and by mammographic view, craniocaudal (CC) versus mediolateral oblique (MLO). Materials and Methods Lesion conspicuity was graded by three readers by using a 0-5 numerical scale on both DM and DBT images from combined DM and DBT studies for 197 consecutive screening-detected cancers in women (mean age, 60.4 years ± 11.1 [standard deviation]) from October 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014. Intermodality (ie, DM vs DBT) and intramodality (ie, CC vs MLO) analyses were performed. For intramodality analyses, conspicuity was analyzed by view, CC versus MLO, within the same modality. Conspicuity grades were dichotomized into low (scores 0-3) and high (scores 4 and 5) conspicuity. This binary result was assessed by using a generalized linear mixed-effects model with logit link function, random-effect intercept for reader, and compound symmetry covariance structure for lesion. Results Cancers were more likely to be high conspicuity at DBT than at DM (odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9, 3.0;
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.