ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2022
A comparative efficacy study of diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in BI-RADS 4 breast cancer diagnosis.
Article in European journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Retrospective Chart Analysis Comparing Breast Cancer Detection Rates Between Annual Versus Biennial Mammograms.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2024Article
- The Accuracy of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Tools.Cureus · 2024Article
- A Deep Learning Decision Support Tool to Improve Risk Stratification and Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies in BI-RADS 4 Mammograms.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeProbability of malignancy for BI-RADS 4-designated breast lesions ranges from 2% to 95%, contributing to high false-positive biopsy rates. We compare clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (2D) among our BI-RADS 4 population without prior history of breast cancer.
methodsWe extracted retrospective data i.e., clinical, mammogram reports, and biopsy data, from electronic medical records across Houston Methodist's nine hospitals for patients who underwent diagnostic examinations using both modalities (02/01/2015 - 09/30/2020). 2D and DBT cohorts were not intra-individual matched, and there was no direct mammogram evaluation. Using Student's t test, Fisher's exact test, and Chi-squared test, we evaluated the data to determine statistical significance of differences between modalities in BI-RADS 4 cases. We calculated adjusted odds-ratio between modalities for cancer detection rate (CDR) and biopsy-derived positive predictive value (PPV3).
resultsThere were 6,356 encounters (6,020 patients) in 2D and 5,896 encounters (5,637 patients) in DBT assessed as BI-RADS 4. Using Fisher's exact test, DBT mammography cases were significantly assessed as BI-RADS 4 5.66% more often than those undergoing 2D mammography, P = 0.0046 (1.0566 95% CI: 1.0169-1.0977). The CDRs were 112.65 (2D) and 120.76 (DBT), adjusted odds-ratio: 1.04 (0.93, 1.16)), P = 0.5029, while PPV3 were 14.41% (2D) and 15.99% (DBT), adjusted odds-ratio: 1.09 (0.97, 1.22), P = 0.1483; both logistic regression-adjusted for all other factors.
conclusionDBT did not achieve better performance and sensitivity in assigning BI-RADS 4 cases compared with 2D, showed no significant advantage in CDR and PPV3, and does not reduce false-positive biopsies among BI-RADS 4-assessed patients.
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.