Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33607065›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2021

Outcomes by Race in Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography.

Nila Alsheik, Linda Blount, Qiu Qiong, Melinda Talley, Scott Pohlman, Kathleen Troeger, Genevieve Abbey, Victoria L Mango, Erica Pollack, Alice Chong and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Nila AlsheikSection Chief, Division Breast Imaging. Co-Medical Director, Advocate Caldwell Breast Center; Chair, Advocate Breast Imaging Medical Directors Committee; Chair, AAHC Imaging Research Council; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois.
Linda BlountPresident and CEO of Black Women's Health Imperative; Vice-Chair of the board of Creating Healthier Communities; Chair of the Rare Disease Diversity Coalition, Washington, District of Columbia.
Qiu QiongAdvocate Caldwell Breast Center, Park Ridge, Illinois.
Melinda TalleySanford Health, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Scott PohlmanDirector, Outcomes Research at Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts.
Kathleen TroegerSenior Director, Outcomes Research at Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts.
Genevieve AbbeyProgram Manager, RAD-AID Breast Imaging, RAD-AID International; Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Victoria L MangoDirector of Radiology at the Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer Care at Memorial Sloan Kettering; Head of Breast Imaging Clinical Research at Memorial Sloan Kettering; Associate Training Program Director Breast Imaging Fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Director, RAD-AID Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.
Erica PollackDirector of Breast Imaging at RAD-AID, RAD-AID International; Head of the breast imaging division at Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver, Colorado.
Alice ChongAssociate Professor, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Vice Chair of Clinical Operations, Department of Radiology, RAD-AID Breast Imaging Program Manager, RAD-AID International.
Greg DonadioOM1, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael BehlingOM1, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kathleen MortimerOM1, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: kmortimer@om1.com.
Emily ConantDivision Chief, Breast Imaging Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Vice Chair of Faculty Development, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, Professor of Radiology at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Office of Multidisciplinary Activities · USHologic (United States) · USAdvanced Breast Care · USAdvocate Lutheran General Hospital · USCornell University · USHealth and Hospital Corporation · USHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USMedical Care Development International · USNational Coalition for Cancer Survivorship · USRalph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention · USSanford Health · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in conjunction with digital mammography (DM) is becoming the preferred imaging modality for breast cancer screening compared with DM alone, on the basis of improved recall rates (RR) and cancer detection rates (CDRs). The aim of this study was to investigate racial differences in the utilization and performance of screening modality.

methodsRetrospective data from 63 US breast imaging facilities from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Screening outcomes were linked to cancer registries. RR, CDR per 1,000 examinations, and positive predictive value for recall (cancers/recalled patients) were compared.

resultsA total of 385,503 women contributed 542,945 DBT and 261,359 DM screens. A lower proportion of screenings for Black women were performed using DBT plus DM (referred to as DBT) (44% for Black, 48% for other, 63% for Asian, and 61% for White). Non-White women were less likely to undergo more than one mammographic examination. RRs were lower for DBT among all women (8.74 versus 10.06, P < .05) and lower across all races and within age categories. RRs were significantly higher for women with only one mammogram. CDRs were similar or higher in women undergoing DBT compared with DM, overall (4.73 versus 4.60, adjusted P = .0005) and by age and race. Positive predictive value for recall was greater for DBT overall (5.29 versus 4.45, adjusted P < .0001) and by age, race, and screening frequency.

conclusionsAll racial groups had improved outcomes with DBT screening, but disparities were observed in DBT utilization. These data suggest that reducing inequities in DBT utilization may improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningRetrospective StudiesBreast cancer screeningdigital breast tomosynthesisracial disparities

Identifiers

PMID33607065
PMCPMC9391198
OpenAlexW3132313849

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.