Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36005173›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022

Reducing Unnecessary Biopsies Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound in Dense and Nondense Breasts.

Ibrahim Hadadi, Jillian Clarke, William Rae, Mark McEntee, Wendy Vincent, Ernest Ekpo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Ibrahim HadadiMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2517-7465
Jillian ClarkeMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3241-1229
William RaeMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Mark McEnteeMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7045-2190
Wendy VincentRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
Ernest EkpoMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6851-0969
The University of Sydney · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: To compare digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound in women recalled for assessment after a positive screening mammogram and assess the potential for each of these tools to reduce unnecessary biopsies. Methods: This data linkage study included 538 women recalled for assessment from January 2017 to December 2019. The association between the recalled mammographic abnormalities and breast density was analysed using the chi-square independence test. Relative risks and the number of recalled cases requiring DBT and ultrasound assessment to prevent one unnecessary biopsy were compared using the McNemar test. Results: Breast density significantly influenced recall decisions (p < 0.001). Ultrasound showed greater potential to decrease unnecessary biopsies than DBT: in entirely fatty (21% vs. 5%; p = 0.04); scattered fibroglandular (23% vs. 10%; p = 0.003); heterogeneously dense (34% vs. 7%; p < 0.001) and extremely dense (39% vs. 9%; p < 0.001) breasts. The number of benign cases needing assessment to prevent one unnecessary biopsy was significantly lower with ultrasound than DBT in heterogeneously dense (1.8 vs. 7; p < 0.001) and extremely dense (1.9 vs. 5.1; p = 0.03) breasts. Conclusion: Women with dense breasts are more likely to be recalled for assessment and have a false-positive biopsy. Women with dense breasts benefit more from ultrasound assessment than from DBT.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyBiopsyBreastBreast DensityEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansbenign biopsybreast cancerbreast densityDBTultrasound

Identifiers

PMID36005173
PMCPMC9406307
OpenAlexW4289985685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.