ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis mammograms in symptomatic breast clinics: what are the result outcomes?
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Malignancy rate of lesions presenting as architectural distortion on DBT related to accompanied features, ultrasound findings, and BI-RADS density.European journal of radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn April 2020, standard two-dimensional (2D) full-field digital mammograms were replaced with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and synthesised 2D views for symptomatic breast clinics. This study aimed to evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) for malignancy in DBT-detected Architectural distortion (AD).
methodsAll mammogram reports with the word "distortion" were assessed between April 2020 and October 2022. There were 458 mammograms with the word "distortion." After excluding mammograms with no distortion (n = 128), post-surgical distortion (n = 173), distortion with mass (n = 33), and unchanged distortion (n = 14), there were 111 patients with pure distortion. Correlation with histopathology was obtained where possible. All patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years.
resultsForty-two out of 111 patients (37.84%) with AD had a normal ultrasound (US) and were discharged. Fifty-five (49.5%) patients had sonographic correlation corresponding to the distortion, leading to US-guided biopsy. Thirteen (23.6%) had tomosynthesis-guided biopsy, and one had a skin biopsy. The PPV for malignancy was 42.34%. Malignancy diagnoses were higher with US-guided biopsies than tomosynthesis-guided biopsies, 78.1% and 30%, respectively.
conclusionWith a total malignancy rate of 42.34%, DBT-detected AD has a high enough PPV for malignancy to justify selective tissue sampling if a sonographic correlate is present or with suspicious mammograms. The chances of malignancy are higher when a sonographic correlate corresponding to AD is present. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: AD on DBT/synthesized mammograms views in symptomatic breast clinic patients justifies selective sampling.
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.