Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32721031›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density.

Kathryn P Lowry, Rebecca Yates Coley, Diana L Miglioretti, Karla Kerlikowske, Louise M Henderson, Tracy Onega, Brian L Sprague, Janie M Lee, Sally Herschorn, Anna N A Tosteson and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
11.3field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Epidemiology, early detection, and management of breast cancer in China: A comprehensive review.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Breast MRI to Screen Women With Extremely Dense Breasts.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn P LowryDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle.
Rebecca Yates ColeyKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle.
Diana L MigliorettiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Tracy OnegaDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Brian L SpragueDepartment of Surgery, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington.
Janie M LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle.
Sally HerschornDepartment of Radiology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington.
Anna N A TostesonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hamsphire.
Garth RauscherDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle.
University of Washington · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of Vermont · USDartmouth College · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Fred W Kolling IV · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KARLA M KERLIKOWSKE · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
Comparative effectiveness of breast imaging modalities: a natural experimentR01HS018366 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI RAUSCHER, GARTH H · 2010 to 2014
$1.8M
AHRQ HHS K12 HS026369AHRQ HHS R01 HS018366NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used for routine breast cancer screening. There is minimal evidence on performance outcomes by age, screening round, and breast density in community practice. Objective: To compare DM vs DBT performance by age, baseline vs subsequent screening round, and breast density category. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study assessed 1 584 079 screening examinations of women aged 40 to 79 years without prior history of breast cancer, mastectomy, or breast augmentation undergoing screening mammography at 46 participating Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from January 2010 to April 2018. Exposures: Age, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density category, screening round, and modality. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute rates and relative risks (RRs) of screening recall and cancer detection. Results: Of 1 273 492 DM and 310 587 DBT examinations analyzed, 1 028 891 examinations (65.0%) were of white non-Hispanic women; 399 952 women (25.2%) were younger than 50 years; and 671 136 women (42.4%) had heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. Adjusted differences in DM vs DBT performance were largest on baseline examinations: for example, per 1000 baseline examinations in women ages 50 to 59, recall rates decreased from 241 examinations for DM to 204 examinations for DBT (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98), and cancer detection rates increased from 5.9 with DM to 8.8 with DBT (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08). On subsequent examinations, women aged 40 to 79 years with heterogeneously dense breasts had improved recall rates and improved cancer detection with DBT. For example, per 1000 examinations in women aged 50 to 59 years, the number of recall examinations decreased from 102 with DM to 93 with DBT (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98), and cancer detection increased from 3.7 with DM to 5.3 with DBT (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23-1.64). Women aged 50 to 79 years with scattered fibroglandular density also had improved recall and cancer detection rates with DBT. Women aged 40 to 49 years with scattered fibroglandular density and women aged 50 to 79 years with almost entirely fatty breasts benefited from improved recall rates without change in cancer detection rates. No improvements in recall or cancer detection rates were observed in women with extremely dense breasts on subsequent examinations for any age group. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that improvements in recall and cancer detection rates with DBT were greatest on baseline mammograms. On subsequent screening mammograms, the benefits of DBT varied by age and breast density. Women with extremely dense breasts did not benefit from improved recall or cancer detection with DBT on subsequent screening rounds.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreastBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsCommunity Health ServicesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRegistries

Identifiers

PMID32721031
PMCPMC7388021
OpenAlexW3045607691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.