Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35333365›Full record

Observational studyJAMA network open2022

Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Thao-Quyen H Ho, Michael C S Bissell, Karla Kerlikowske, Rebecca A Hubbard, Brian L Sprague, Christoph I Lee, Jeffrey A Tice, Anna N A Tosteson, Diana L Miglioretti

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05942066 (Feasibility Study Aiming at Pre-Analytical Standardization of Whole Blood Processing for Liquid Biopsy Applications), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.6field-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.

NCT05942066 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility Study Aiming at Pre-Analytical Standardization of Whole Blood Processing for Liquid Biopsy Applications

TypeobservationalSponsorTethis S.p.A.Ran2023 to 2027Enrolled200ConditionsHealthy Participants
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Something's different: elaboration's transferrable role for false alarm reduction.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Thao-Quyen H HoDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis.
Michael C S BissellDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis.
Karla KerlikowskeGeneral Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco.
Rebecca A HubbardDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Brian L SpragueDepartment of Surgery, Office of Health Promotion Research, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont and University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, Vermont.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
Jeffrey A TiceDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Anna N A TostesonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Diana L MigliorettiDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis.
University of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USCotton (United States) · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Vermont · USUniversity of Washington · 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
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis may decrease false-positive results compared with digital mammography. Objective: To estimate the probability of receiving at least 1 false-positive result after 10 years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational comparative effectiveness study with data collected prospectively for screening examinations was performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Analysis included 903 495 individuals aged 40 to 79 years. Data analysis was conducted from February 9 to September 7, 2021. Exposures: Screening modality, screening interval, age, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative risk of at least 1 false-positive recall for further imaging, short-interval follow-up recommendation, and biopsy recommendation after 10 years of annual or biennial screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography, accounting for competing risks of breast cancer diagnosis and death. Results: In this study of 903 495 women, 2 969 055 nonbaseline screening examinations were performed with interpretation by 699 radiologists. Mean (SD) age of the women at the time of the screening examinations was 57.6 (9.9) years, and 58% of the examinations were in individuals younger than 60 years and 46% were performed in women with dense breasts. A total of 15% of examinations used tomosynthesis. For annual screening, the 10-year cumulative probability of at least 1 false-positive result was significantly lower with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography for all outcomes: 49.6% vs 56.3% (difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -7.4 to -6.1) for recall, 16.6% vs 17.8% (difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.6) for short-interval follow-up recommendation, and 11.2% vs 11.7% (difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1) for biopsy recommendation. For biennial screening, the cumulative probability of a false-positive recall was significantly lower for tomosynthesis vs digital mammography (35.7% vs 38.1%; difference, -2.4; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.5), but cumulative probabilities did not differ significantly by modality for short-interval follow-up recommendation (10.3% vs 10.5%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.5) or biopsy recommendation (6.6% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4). Decreases in cumulative probabilities of false-positive results with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography were largest for annual screening in women with nondense breasts (differences for recall, -6.5 to -12.8; short-interval follow-up, 0.1 to -5.2; and biopsy recommendation, -0.5 to -3.1). Regardless of modality, cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial vs annual screening (overall recall, 35.7 to 38.1 vs 49.6 to 56.3; short-interval follow-up, 10.3 to 10.5 vs 16.6 to 17.8; and biopsy recommendation, 6.6 to 6.7 vs 11.2 to 11.7); older vs younger age groups (eg, among annual screening in women ages 70-79 vs 40-49, recall, 39.8 to 47.0 vs 60.8 to 68.0; short-interval follow-up, 13.3 to 14.2 vs 20.7 to 20.9; and biopsy recommendation, 9.1 to 9.3 vs 13.2 to 13.4); and women with entirely fatty vs extremely dense breasts (eg, among annual screening in women aged 50-59 years, recall, 29.1 to 36.3 vs 58.8 to 60.4; short-interval follow-up, 8.9 to 11.6 vs 19.5 to 19.8; and biopsy recommendation, 4.9 to 8.0 vs 15.1 to 15.3). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study, 10-year cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were lower on digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. Biennial screening interval, older age, and nondense breasts were associated with larger reductions in false-positive probabilities than screening modality.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningProbability

Identifiers

PMID35333365
PMCPMC8956976
OpenAlexW4220856217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.