Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39012526›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2025

Radiation exposure and screening yield by digital breast tomosynthesis compared to mammography: results of the TOSYMA Trial breast density related.

Alexander Sommer, Stefanie Weigel, Hans-Werner Hense, Joachim Gerß, Veronika Weyer-Elberich, Laura Kerschke, Elke Nekolla, Horst Lenzen, Walter Heindel, TOSYMA Screening Trial Study Group

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2025. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alexander SommerClinic for Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography Münster, University of Münster and University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany. Alexander.Sommer@ukmuenster.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2770-7765
Stefanie WeigelClinic for Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography Münster, University of Münster and University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Hans-Werner HenseInstitute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Joachim GerßInstitute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Veronika Weyer-ElberichInstitute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Laura KerschkeInstitute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Elke NekollaFederal Office for Radiation Protection, Department of Medical Radiation Protection, Neuherberg, Germany.
Horst LenzenClinic for Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography Münster, University of Münster and University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Walter HeindelClinic for Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography Münster, University of Münster and University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
TOSYMA Screening Trial Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe randomized TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) screening trial has shown that digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesized mammography (DBT + SM) is superior to digital mammography (DM) in invasive breast cancer detection varying with breast density. On the other hand, the overall average glandular dose (AGD) of DBT is higher than that of DM. Comparing the DBT + SM and DM trial arm, we analyzed here the mean AGD and their determinants per breast density category and related them to the respective invasive cancer detection rates (iCDR).

methodsTOSYMA screened 99,689 women aged 50 to 69 years. Compression force, resulting breast thickness, the calculated AGD obtained from each mammography device, and previously published iCDR were used for comparisons across breast density categories in the two trial arms.

resultsThere were 196,622 exposures of 49,227 women (DBT + SM) and 197,037 exposures of 49,132 women (DM) available for analyses. Mean breast thicknesses declined from breast density category A (fatty) to D (extremely dense) in both trial arms. However, while the mean AGD in the DBT + SM arm declined concomitantly from category A (2.41 mGy) to D (1.89 mGy), it remained almost unchanged in the DM arm (1.46 and 1.51 mGy, respectively). In relative terms, the AGD elevation in the DBT + SM arm (64.4% (A), by 44.5% (B), 27.8% (C), and 26.0% (D)) was lowest in dense breasts where, however, the highest iCDR were observed.

conclusionWomen with dense breasts may specifically benefit from DBT + SM screening as high cancer detection is achieved with only moderate AGD elevations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: TOSYMA suggests a favorable constellation for screening with digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesized mammography (DBT + SM) in dense breasts when weighing average glandular dose elevation against raised invasive breast cancer detection rates. There is potential for density-, i.e., risk-adapted population-wide breast cancer screening with DBT + SM. KEY POINTS: Breast thickness declines with visually increasing density in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Average glandular doses of DBT decrease with increasing density; digital mammography shows lower and more constant values. With the smallest average glandular dose difference in dense breasts, DBT plus SM had the highest difference in invasive breast cancer detection rates.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsMammographyRadiation ExposureAgedBreastEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRadiation DosageBreast cancer detectionBreast densityDigital breast tomosynthesisMammography screeningRadiation exposure

Identifiers

PMID39012526
PMCPMC11632027

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.