ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLimited understanding exists regarding non-detected cancers in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. This study aims to classify non-detected cancers into true or false negatives, compare them with true positives, and analyze reasons for non-detection. MATERIALS AND
methodsConducted between 2010 and 2015, the prospective single-center Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) compared one-view DBT and two-view digital mammography (DM). Cancers not detected by DBT, i.e., interval cancers, those detected in the next screening round, and those only identified by DM, underwent a retrospective informed review by in total four breast radiologists. Reviewers classified cancers into true negative, false negative, or non-visible based on both DBT and DM findings and assessed radiographic appearances at screening and diagnosis, breast density, and reasons for non-detection. Statistics included the Pearson X
resultsIn total, 89 cancers were not detected with DBT in the MBTST; eight cancers were solely in the DM reading mode, 59 during subsequent DM screening rounds, and 22 interval cancers. The proportion of cancers classified as false negative was 25% (22/89) based on DBT, compared with 18% (14/81) based on DM screening. The primary reason for false negatives was normal-appearing density, 50% (11/22). False negatives exhibited lower rates of high breast density, 36% (8/22), compared with true positives, 61% (78/129), p = 0.04, and spiculated densities were less frequent in false negatives, 41% (9/22) compared with true positives, 68% (88/129), p = 0.01.
conclusionFalse negatives in one-view DBT screening commonly presented with spiculated features, but less frequently than true positives, and were missed or misinterpreted due to benign appearances. KEY POINTS: Question Cancers not detected in digital breast tomosynthesis screening, including false negatives, remain partly unexplored. Findings The most common reason behind false-negative cancers in a large screening trial was a normal-appearing density. Clinical relevance Recognizing the factors contributing to false negative findings in digital breast tomosynthesis screening is essential to further improve cancer detection.
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.