Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39394862›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of cancer2025

Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wasim Hamad, Michael J Michell, Jonathan P Myles, Fiona J Gilbert, Yan Chen, Huajie Jin, John Loveland, Mark Halling-Brown, Keshthra Satchithananda, Juliet Morel and 9 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

19 authors.

Wasim HamadWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5210-9177
Michael J MichellBreast Radiology Department and National Breast Training Centre, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Jonathan P MylesWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Fiona J GilbertDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Yan ChenApplied Vision Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Huajie JinBreast Radiology Department and National Breast Training Centre, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
John LovelandScientific Computing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
Mark Halling-BrownScientific Computing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
Keshthra SatchithanandaBreast Radiology Department and National Breast Training Centre, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Juliet MorelBreast Radiology Department and National Breast Training Centre, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Rema WasanBreast Radiology Department and National Breast Training Centre, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Caroline TaylorThe Jarvis Breast Centre, Guildford, UK.
Nisha SharmaBreast Screening Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Alexandra ValenciaAvon Breast Screening Unit, Bristol Breast Care Centre, Bristol, UK.
Will TehNorth London Breast Screening Service, Edgware Community Hospital, London, UK.
Faisal MajidSandwell and Walsall Breast Screening Service, Sandwell & West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Ronald M De VisserBreast Radiology Department and National Breast Training Centre, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Asif IqbalBreast Radiology Department and National Breast Training Centre, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Stephen W DuffyWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

NIHR Policy research programme 1217-21601
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) exposes women to a higher radiation dose. A synthetic 2D mammogram (S2D) is a two-dimensional image constructed from DBT. We aim to evaluate the S2D performance when used alone or combined with DBT compared to FFDM alone or with DBT. Studies were included if they recruited screening participants and reported on S2D performance. Studies were excluded if they included symptomatic patients, imaging was for diagnostic purposes, or if participants had a breast cancer history. Meta-analyses for cancer detection rates (CDR) and Specificities were conducted where available. Differences in the performance of imaging modalities were calculated within individual studies, and these were pooled by meta-analysis. Out of 3241 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review and 13 in the meta-analysis. The estimated combined difference in CDRs per thousand among individual studies that reported on DBT plus S2D vs. FFDM and those reporting on DBT plus S2D versus DBT plus FFDM was 2.03 (95% CI 0.81-3.25) and - 0.15 (95% CI -1.17 to 0.86), respectively. The estimated difference in percent specificities was 1.13 (95% CI -0.06 to 2.31) in studies comparing DBT plus S2D and FFDM. In studies comparing DBT plus S2D and DBT plus FFDM, the estimated difference in specificities was 1.08 (95% CI 0.59-1.56). DBT plus S2D showed comparable accuracy to FFDM plus DPT and improved cancer detection to FFDM alone. Integrating S2D with DBT in breast cancer screening is safe and preserves performance.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyFemaleHumansSensitivity and Specificitybreast cancerdigital breast tomosynthesisscreeningsynthetic mammogram

Identifiers

PMID39394862
PMCPMC11701408

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.