Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32096852›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2020

Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening.

Christopher E Comstock, Constantine Gatsonis, Gillian M Newstead, Bradley S Snyder, Ilana F Gareen, Jennifer T Bergin, Habib Rahbar, Janice S Sung, Christina Jacobs, Jennifer A Harvey and 7 more

Erratum issued 2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 171 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
171citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
36.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02933489 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Dense Breasts

TypeinterventionalSponsorECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research GroupRan2016 to 2026Enrolled1,516ConditionsAsymptomaticArmsContrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Digital Tomosynthesis Mammography, Quality-of-Life Assessment, Questionnaire Administration
NCT05787249 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Improving Utilization of Supplemental Breast MRI Screening for Women With Extremely Dense Breasts

TypeinterventionalSponsorAbramson Cancer Center at Penn MedicineRan2023 to 2025Enrolled1,358ConditionsBreast CancerArmsPatient nudge, Provider nudge
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

171 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 442 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Relative SNR Measurements in Supine vs. Prone Breast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.

Christopher E ComstockMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Constantine GatsonisDepartment of Biostatistics and Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Gillian M NewsteadUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Bradley S SnyderCenter for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Ilana F GareenCenter for Statistical Sciences, Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Jennifer T BerginUW Cancer Center at ProHealth Care, Waukesha, Wisconsin.
Habib RahbarFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Janice S SungMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Christina JacobsWest Michigan Cancer Center, Kalamazoo.
Jennifer A HarveyUniversity of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville.
Mary H NicholsonCommunity Hospital, Munster, Indiana.
Robert C WardRhode Island Hospital, Providence.
Jacqueline HoltDelaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark.
Andrew PratherGundersen Health System, La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Kathy D MillerIndiana University, Indianapolis.
Mitchell D SchnallUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Christiane K KuhlUniversity Hospital of RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Brown University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USChristiana Care Health System · USCommunity Hospital · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USGundersen Health System · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USPhiladelphia University · USProHealth Care · USProvidence College · USRWTH Aachen University · DEUniversity of Chicago · USUniversity of Virginia · USWest Michigan Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
ECOG-ACRIN NCORP Research Base - TMISTUG1CA189828 · NCI · ECOG-ACRIN MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI Peter J ODwyer, MITCHELL D. SCHNALL · 2014 to 2026
$199.7M
Wisconsin NCI Community Oncology Research Program (WiNCORP)UG1CA189956 · NCI · MARSHFIELD CLINIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI ADEDAYO A ONITILO, Kurt Oettel · 2014 to 2026
$32.3M
Cancer Research Consortium of West Michigan (CRCWM)UG1CA189860 · NCI · COREWELL HEALTH · PI KATHLEEN YOST BUTLER · 2014 to 2026
$29.1M
Delaware Christiana Care NCORPUG1CA189819 · NCI · CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. · PI GREGORY A MASTERS · 2014 to 2026
$21.6M
Network Lead Academic Participating Site: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterUG1CA233290 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI CAROL AGHAJANIAN, Darren Feldman · 2019 to 2026
$10.2M
NCI, National Clinical Trials Network Lead Academic Participating Site (LAPS) UG1 (funded extension)UG1CA232760 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Judy Caroline Boughey, Aaron Scott Mansfield · 2019 to 2026
$8.5M
Naional Cancer Institute, Naitonal Clinical Trials Network U10 Lead Academic SiteU10CA180790 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ALBERTS, STEVEN R, BOUGHEY, JUDY CAROLINE · 2014 to 2018
$6.6M
Network Lead Academic Participating Site: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterU10CA180791 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI AGHAJANIAN, CAROL, MORRIS, MICHAEL J · 2014 to 2018
$4.6M
Hutchinson Center as Lead Academic Participating Site (UG1)UG1CA233328 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Evan Yu · 2019 to 2026
$4.3M
Vanderbilt Network Lead Academic Participating Site for the NCTNUG1CA233270 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Kristen Keon Ciombor · 2019 to 2026
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180790NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180791NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180795NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180828NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180836NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180847NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189819NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189828NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189860NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189956NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA232760NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233270NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233290NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233328
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Improved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography. Objective: To compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019. Exposures: All women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity. Results: Among 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933489.

Indexed as

Breast DensityMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyAdultAgedBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID32096852
PMCPMC7276668
OpenAlexW3006788346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.