ArticleAcademic radiology2022
Prospective Comparison of Synthesized Mammography with DBT and Full-Field Digital Mammography with DBT Uncovers Recall Disagreements That may Impact Cancer Detection.
Article in Academic radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesSynthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (SM+DBT) and full-field digital mammography with DBT were prospectively evaluated for recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), lesion recall differences, and disagreements in recall for additional imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom December 15, 2015 to January 15, 2017, after informed consent was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant study, each enrolled patient's SM+DBT and FFDM+DBT were interpreted sequentially by one of eight radiologists. RR, CDR, PPV1, and imaging findings (asymmetry, focal asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion, and calcifications) recalled were reviewed.
resultsFor SM+DBT and FFDM+DBT in 1022 patients, RR was 7.3% and 7.9% (SM+DBT vs. FFDM+DBT: diff= -0.6%; 90% CI= -1.4%, 0.1%); CDR was 6.8 and 7.8 per 1000 (SM+DBT vs. FFDM+DBT: diff= -1.0, 95% CI= -5.5, 2.8, p = 0.317); PPV1 was 9.3% and 9.9% (relative positive predictive value for SM+DBT vs. FFDM+DBT: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.73-1.22, p = 0.669). FFDM+DBT detected eight cancers; SM+DBT detected seven (missed 1 cancer with calcifications). SM+DBT and FFDM+DBT disagreed on patient recall for additional imaging in 19 patients, with majority (68%, 13/19 patients) in the recall of patients for calcifications. For calcifications, SM+DBT recalled six patients that FFDM+DBT did not recall, and FFDM+DBT recalled seven patients that SM+DBT did not recall, even though the total number of calcifications finding recalled was similar overall for both SM+DBT and FFDM+DBT.
conclusionDisagreement in recall of patients for calcifications may impact cancer detection by SM+DBT, warranting further investigation.
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.