ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Is there any added value to substitute the 2D digital MLO projection for a MLO tomosynthesis projection and its synthetic view when a 2D standard digital mammography is used in a one-stop-shop immediate reading mammography screening?
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subcategorisation of Data for AI Models in Healthcare: A Case Study in Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesBreast cancer screening consists of batch interpretation of two-view (cranio-caudal CC- and medio-lateral oblique MLO) digital mammography (DM) per breast. The DM-MLO view was substituted by an MLO-digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and its synthetic (2D-synthetic mammography (SM)-MLO) view. The performance of this hybrid protocol was evaluated in a one-stop-shop screening visit, providing immediate reading and additional work up.
methodsRetrospective, observational review, comparing the cancer detection rate (CDR), breast US rates, and biopsy rates in 13,048 women screened with DM from June 2015 to November 2016 and 8639 women screened with SM-DBT/DM from January 2017 to July 2018. Chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare proportions between the two screening imaging methods.
resultsSM + DBT/DM significantly increased the overall CDR (10.8‰) versus DM (7.5‰) (p = 0.0120) with more invasive lobular carcinoma (14% versus 4%) (p = 0.0357) detected and overall more invasive cancers among women with breast density type B (p = 0.0411) and those aged between 60 and 70 (p = 0.0306). This was achieved at the expense of additional sonographic examinations performed (33.5% in DBT group versus 26.7% in DM group) (p < 0.0001), more BI-RADS category III assigned (1.8% in SM-DBT/DM group versus 1.5% in DM group) (p = 0.0443) and more biopsy rates (3.0 % in SM-DBT/DM group versus 1.7% in DM group) (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsHybrid mammographic protocol replacing 2D-MLO by DBT-MLO and SM-MLO views in a one-stop-shop screening visit improved CDR, at the expense of more sonographic examinations, biopsies, and BI-RADS III lesions. Breast US alone detected 9.2% of all breast cancers in this cohort. KEY POINTS: • Hybrid protocol including MLO (DBT + SM) with 2D DM CC may improve CDR compared to standard 4 views 2D DM in a screening program providing immediate interpretation. • Adding screening breast US, when perceived necessary, in the same visit of a screening mammography, increases cancer detection rate of 9.2%. • Based on our results, hybrid protocol including DBT + SM in MLO plane and DM in CC plane could be safely implemented as a transition towards DBT and SM alone, without any compromise in the cancer detection ability. Our results may vary according to the properties of machines from different vendors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34047846What 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.