ArticleJAMA2022
Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer.
Article in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Italian guidelines for the use of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening programmes: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT of the European guidelines.La Radiologia medica · 2026Guideline
- ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI.European radiology · 2024Guideline
- Pooled it
- Improving the malignancy prediction of breast cancer based on the integration of radiomics features from dual-view mammography and clinical parameters.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Trial
- Tomosynthesis and Synthesized-2D Breast AI Outputs in a Biopsy-Referred Cohort: A Diagnostic Study of Agreement and Incremental Decision-Support Value.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Advanced Versus Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in a Screening Population: Implications for Risk-based Prevention and Screening Strategies.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Changes in Use, Cost, and Value of Breast Cancer Screening Among Older Women in the US.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Review of breast arterial calcifications for cardiovascular disease risk prediction.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Review
- Outcomes of Density-Targeted Supplemental Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening by Breast Cancer Risk: Long-Term Health and Economic Considerations.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Hemodynamic Inflow-Outflow Profiling as an Integrated DCE-MRI Biomarker for Diagnosis and Risk Stratification in Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Article
- Improving preventive screening efficiency: A population-based model of age-specific mammographic density for breast Cancer detection in Saudi Arabia.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Mammographic calcifications association with risk of advanced breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Management Pathways for Workup of Abnormal Screening With Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Japanese Women.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography-based Radiomics for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: Case-Control Study.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Associated with Similar Rates of Advanced Cancer.Radiology · 2025Article
- Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Non-Mass Enhancement on MRI 10 Years Before Mammographic Microcalcifications.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2025Article
- Mathematical Modeling to Address Questions in Breast Cancer Screening: An Overview of the Breast Cancer Models of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network.Journal of breast imaging · 2025Review
- Screening of breast cancer in higher-risk Taiwanese women using contrast-enhanced mammography.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Diagnostic dilemma of lobular carcinoma: a mini-review of imaging modalities and the role of artificial intelligence and radiomics.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk. Objective: To evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries. Exposures: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting. Results: Among 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32). Conclusions and Relevance: Screening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.
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.