Trial reportJAMA2020
Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening.
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.
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.
Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Dense Breasts
Improving Utilization of Supplemental Breast MRI Screening for Women With Extremely Dense Breasts
Who cites it
171 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 442 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative diagnostic efficacy of abbreviated and full protocol breast MRI: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical guidelines for the management of mammographic density: a systematic review of breast screening guidelines worldwide.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Pooled it
- ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI.European radiology · 2024Guideline
- Economic evaluation of breast MRI in screening - a systematic review and basic approach to cost-effectiveness analyses.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled 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
- Traumatic breast pseudohernia presenting as a fungating mass during lactation: Multimodality imaging findings.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography for women with extremely dense breasts in a national breast cancer screening program: a micro-simulation study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Breast MRI Lesion Classification: A Targeted Evidence Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Discriminative Performance and Heterogeneity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Deep Learning for Early Breast Cancer Detection on Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Multicenter Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap: clinical practice, guidelines, reimbursement and real-world challenges in breast imaging - webinar highlights.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Relative SNR Measurements in Supine vs. Prone Breast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Training AI to Improve Distinction of Triple-Negative Invasive Breast Cancer from Cysts and Fibroadenomas on Ultrasound.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advances in Breast Cancer Diagnostics: From Screening to Precision Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Establishing an Evidence-based Modern Breast MRI Program.Journal of breast imaging · 2026Review
- Clinical Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast MRI in Women at Increased Breast Cancer Risk.Cancers · 2026Article
- From Standard Establishment to Precision Intelligence: Research Progress in Quality Control of Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Breast imaging with ultra-low field MRI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of Clinical Performance Between Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and MammouS-N.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Characterizing the imaging environment for supine breast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.