Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34324025›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting?

Paola Clauser, Pascal A T Baltzer, Panagiotis Kapetas, Ramona Woitek, Michael Weber, Federica Leone, Maria Bernathova, Thomas H Helbich

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Paola ClauserDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria. clauser.p@hotmail.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2365-6905
Pascal A T BaltzerDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria.
Panagiotis KapetasDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria.
Ramona WoitekDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria.
Michael WeberDivision of General and Pediatric Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Federica LeoneOspedale Luigi Sacco - Polo Universitario, via G.B. Grassi 74, 20157, Milan, Italy.
Maria BernathovaDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas H HelbichDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance in the assessment setting of three protocols: one-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (WA-DBT) with synthetic mammography (SM), two-view WA-DBT/SM, and two-view digital mammography (DM).

methodsIncluded in this retrospective study were patients who underwent bilateral two-view DM and WA-DBT. SM were reconstructed from the WA-DBT data. The standard of reference was histology and/or 2 years follow-up. Included were 205 women with 179 lesions (89 malignant, 90 benign). Four blinded readers randomly evaluated images to assess density, lesion type, and level of suspicion according to BI-RADS. Three protocols were evaluated: two-view DM, one-view (mediolateral oblique) WA-DBT/SM, and two-view WA-DBT/SM. Detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and compared using multivariate analysis. Reading time was assessed.

resultsThe detection rate was higher with two-view WA-DBT/SM (p = 0.063). Sensitivity was higher for two-view WA-DBT/SM compared to two-view DM (p = 0.001) and one-view WA-DBT/SM (p = 0.058). No significant differences in specificity were found. Accuracy was higher with both one-view WA-DBT/SM and two-view WA-DBT/SM compared to DM (p = 0.003 and > 0.001, respectively). Accuracy did not differ between one- and two-view WA-DBT/SM. Two-view WA-DBT/SM performed better for masses and asymmetries. Reading times were significantly longer when WA-DBT was evaluated.

conclusionsOne-view and two-view WA-DBT/SM can achieve a higher diagnostic performance compared to two-view DM. The detection rate and sensitivity were highest with two-view WA-DBT/SM. Two-view WA-DBT/SM appears to be the most appropriate tool for the assessment of breast lesions. KEY POINTS: • Detection rate with two-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (WA-DBT) is significantly higher than with two-view digital mammography in the assessment setting. • Diagnostic accuracy of one-view and two-view WA-DBT with synthetic mammography (SM) in the assessment setting is higher than that of two-view digital mammography. • Compared to one-view WA-DBT with SM, two-view WA-DBT with SM seems to be the most appropriate tool for the assessment of breast lesions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsParagangliomaBreastFemaleHistological TechniquesHumansMammographyRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity3D mammographyBreast cancerDigital breast tomosynthesisMammography

Identifiers

PMID34324025
PMCPMC8660729

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.