Observational studyJAMA network open2022
Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.
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.
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.
Feasibility Study Aiming at Pre-Analytical Standardization of Whole Blood Processing for Liquid Biopsy Applications
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Screening Programs: Systematic Review and Framework for Safe Adoption.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Interpretable Whole-Breast Radiomic Biomarkers for Exploratory Assessment of HER2 + Breast Cancer in Digital Mammography.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Changes in Use, Cost, and Value of Breast Cancer Screening Among Older Women in the US.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Breast cancer risk prediction with a modified BOADICEA model in Danish women.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Over-detection and over-surveillance in breast screening: current status and the potential for artificial intelligence optimisation.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Personalization in Breast Cancer Screening: From Population Models to Individualized Protocols.Cancers · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Management Pathways for Workup of Abnormal Screening With Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- Machine learning can reliably predict malignancy of breast lesions based on clinical and ultrasonographic features.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Development of a GPT-4-Powered Virtual Simulated Patient and Communication Training Platform for Medical Students to Practice Discussing Abnormal Mammogram Results With Patients: Multiphase Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Something's different: elaboration's transferrable role for false alarm reduction.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Widefield ultra-high-density optical breast tomography system supplementing x-ray mammography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Simulated arbitration of discordance between radiologists and artificial intelligence interpretation of breast cancer screening mammograms.Journal of medical screening · 2025Article
- Classification of Mammography Images Based on Multifractal Analysis of BIMFs.International journal of biomedical imaging · 2025Article
- MicroRNAs and their role in breast cancer metabolism (Review).International journal of oncology · 2025Review
- CLGB-Net: fusion network for identifying local and global information of lesions in digital mammography images.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- An open codebase for enhancing transparency in deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis utilizing CBIS-DDSM data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Response to the New USPSTF Recommendations on Breast Cancer Screening: Shared Decision-Making is the Cornerstone of Person-Centered Care.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2024Article
- Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Understanding the Landscape of Multi-Cancer Detection Tests: The Current Data and Clinical Considerations.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.