Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40384686›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025

Clinical diagnostic accuracy and non-inferiority of digital breast tomosynthesis by synthetic 2D mammography compared with full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of breast cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

Saengsiri Chumsaengsri, Malai Muttarak, Jayanton Patumanond, Pailin Kongmebhol, Chumsaeng Chumsaengsri, Miguel Aristizabal, Hiroyuki Abe, Apichat Tantraworasin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Saengsiri ChumsaengsriDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology Department, Chulabhorn Hospital, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1811-188X
Malai MuttarakWomen Health Center, Center for Medical Excellence, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Jayanton PatumanondClinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University, Phitsanuloke, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8977-2995
Pailin KongmebholDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8621-1540
Chumsaeng ChumsaengsriInstitute of Dermatology, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9126-5578
Miguel AristizabalMayo Clinic College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4242-0674
Hiroyuki AbeDepartment of Radiology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3568-1462
Apichat TantraworasinDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7913-2799

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Synthetic two-dimensional (2D) mammography (SM), which is reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) data, has been developed as a possible substitute for full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and non-inferiority of S-view SM with FFDM combined with DBT in the detection of breast cancers, in addition to evaluating inter-observer agreement for the visibility score of suspicious calcifications on S-view SM images. Methods: Between July 2019 and June 2021, a retrospective study was conducted, examining both screening and diagnostic mammography using Amulet Innovality, Fujifilm, with DBT, S-view SM, and FFDM. A total of 485 women with ages ranging from 31 to 90 years old, consisting of 177 breast malignancies from 175 patients, 70 biopsy-proven benign cases, and 240 non-biopsy benign cases, were included in the study. Two observers reviewed S-view SM plus DBT and FFDM plus DBT independently, with a 4-week washout period between assessments. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were compared using McNemar's test and DeLong test, respectively. The non-inferiority of S-view SM plus DBT to FFDM plus DBT was also assessed with a one-sided confidence interval (CI). Additionally, inter-observer agreement on the visibility of suspicious calcification on S-view SM was measured using Cohen's kappa. Results: Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for S-view SM plus DBT were 98.9% (95% CI: 96.0-99.9%), 85.2% (95% CI: 80.7-88.9%), and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98), respectively. When compared to FFDM plus DBT, the sensitivity was 99.4% (95% CI: 96.9-100%, P value >0.999), the specificity was 84.8% (95% CI: 80.0-88.6%, P value >0.999), and the AUC was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98, P value =0.40). No statistically significant difference in clinical performance was observed between S-view SM plus DBT and FFDM plus DBT. The non-inferiority of the sensitivity and specificity of S-view SM plus DBT compared to FFDM plus DBT was proven, with lower CIs of 96.0% and 80.7%, respectively. Similarly, the non-inferiority analysis for AUC also demonstrated consistent results, with a lower CI of 0.87, confirming that S-view SM plus DBT is not inferior to FFDM plus DBT. Interrater agreement on the assessment of morphology classification and distribution of suspicious calcification was excellent (correlation coefficient =0.96). Conclusions: S-view SM has a non-inferior clinical performance to FFDM for the detection of breast cancers when used in combination with DBT. The utilization of SM alongside DBT emerges as a favorable option, offering the potential to mitigate radiation dose without compromising diagnostic precision.

Indexed as

breast cancerdiagnosisdigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)full-field digital mammography (FFDM)Synthetic mammography

Identifiers

PMID40384686
PMCPMC12082583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.