ArticleJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN2025
Comparative Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography for Surveillance After Breast Cancer Treatment.
Article in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been less extensively evaluated for surveillance after breast cancer treatment than for screening. We compared the performance of DBT and digital mammography (DM) for surveillance of asymptomatic women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC), using US clinical practice data adjusted for population differences.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 28,042 women with PHBC and posttreatment surveillance mammograms performed between 2012 and 2018 at 37 facilities within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We calculated performance measures and absolute differences (ADs) for DBT versus DM, including cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, interval cancer rate, recall rate, and false-positive biopsy recommendation rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV1), with 95% confidence intervals, adjusting for population characteristics using overlap weighting.
resultsAmong 80,077 mammograms (DBT, n=27,852; DM, n=52,225) and 1,098 subsequent breast cancer diagnoses, DBT had a higher CDR (AD, 2.3 per 1,000 [95% CI, 0.3 to 4.3]), invasive CDR (AD, 2.9 per 1,000 [95% CI, 1.0 to 4.7]), and PPV1 (AD, 5.2% [95% CI, 2.5% to 7.8%)] and lower recall rate (AD, -1.0% [95% CI, -1.5% to -0.5%]) compared with DM. No significant differences overall were identified for interval cancer rate or other performance measures. Surveillance-detected cancers with DBT or DM had similar proportions of favorable prognostic characteristics (smaller size, node-negative, and estrogen receptor-positive).
conclusionsFor women with PHBC, DBT had better detection metrics compared with DM, as demonstrated by higher CDR, higher invasive CDR, and lower recall rate. However, the lack of significant reduction in interval cancer rate suggests that both DBT and DM may be used for posttreatment surveillance. Identifying effective imaging surveillance strategies for reducing interval cancer rates is needed to further improve posttreatment outcomes.
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.