Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39363049›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Interval breast cancer rates for tomosynthesis vs mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Sol Libesman, Tong Li, M Luke Marinovich, Anna Lene Seidler, Alberto Stefano Tagliafico, Nehmat Houssami

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. The Canadian Breast Cancer Symposium 2025: Meeting Report.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sol LibesmanThe NHMRC Clinical Trial Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia. sol.libesman@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7513-2663
Tong LiThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
M Luke MarinovichThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Anna Lene SeidlerThe NHMRC Clinical Trial Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alberto Stefano TagliaficoRadiology Section, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Nehmat HoussamiThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) 1199927National Health and Medical Research Council 1194410
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to synthesise evidence from prospective studies of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening to assess its effectiveness compared to digital mammography (DM). Specifically, we examined whether DBT reduces interval cancer rates (ICRs) in population breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of DBT screening studies (identified from January 2013 to March 2024). We included both RCTs and non-randomised prospective studies that used an independent comparison for our primary outcome ICRs. The risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2. We compared the ICR, cancer detection rate (CDR), and recall rate of DBT and DM screening using random effects meta-analysis models. Subgroup analyses estimated outcomes by study design. Sensitivity analyses estimated absolute effects from relative effects.

resultsTen prospective studies (three RCTs, seven non-randomised) were eligible; all had a low risk of bias. There were 205,245 DBT-screened and 306,476 DM-screened participants with follow-up for interval cancer data. The pooled absolute ICR did not significantly differ between DBT and DM: -2.92 per 10,000 screens (95% CI: -6.39 to 0.54); however subsequent subgroup analysis indicated certain study designs may have biased this ICR estimate. Pooled ICR from studies that only sampled groups from the same time and region indicated DBT led to 5.50 less IC per 10,000 screens (95% CI: -9.47 to -1.54). Estimates from subgroup analysis that compared randomised and non-randomised trials did not significantly differ.

conclusionThis meta-analysis provides suggestive evidence that DBT decreases ICR relative to DM screening; further evidence is needed to reduce uncertainty regarding ICR differences between DBT and DM. KEY POINTS: Question Does DBT have long-term benefits over standard DM? Finding We find suggestive evidence in our primary analysis and stronger evidence in a follow-up analysis that DBT reduces interval cancers. Clinical relevance This meta-analysis provides the first indication that DBT may detect additional cancers that are clinically meaningful, based on suggestive evidence of a reduction in ICR. This finding does not preclude the simultaneous possibility of overdiagnosis.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyFemaleHumansProspective StudiesBreast cancerCancer screeningDigital breast tomosynthesisInterval cancerMammography

Identifiers

PMID39363049
PMCPMC11836155

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.