ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Radiological review of interval breast cancers following screening with DBT + DM or DM: results from MAITA project randomized trials.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. 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
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCompare the radiological characteristics of screening images preceding interval cancers that occurred in women screened with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus digital mammography (DM) vs. those in women screened with DM alone. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom two randomized trials comparing DBT + DM vs. DM, 91 (43 from DBT + DM arm and 48 from DM arm) images preceding interval cancers and 190 (94 and 96, respectively) negative controls were reviewed by three radiologists using only DM screening mammograms and by three different radiologists using all available images, i.e. DBT and DM for the experimental arm and DM for the standard arm. The cancers were classified according to the number of reviewers that found abnormalities, as true negative (negative for all three reviewers), minimal sign (positive for one and negative for two), and false negative (positive for two or three reviewers).
resultsIn the DM arm, interval cancers were classified as true negative in 29-42%, minimal signs in 31-35%, and false negative in 27-35%; in the DBT arm, the proportion of true negative was 40%, minimal signs 21%, and false negatives 40% when the review was performed using only DM images, 30%, 28%, and 42% when the reviewers read both DBT and DM screening images. The differences were compatible with random fluctuations.
conclusionThe radiological analysis of interval cancers after DBT + DM and after DM alone showed similar characteristics, confirming that the impact of DBT on interval cancer incidence is small both in terms of quantity and type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42550460What 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.