Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39424451›Full record

SynthesisClinical breast cancer2025

Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Tong Li, Jennifer Isautier, Janie M Lee, M Luke Marinovich, Nehmat Houssami

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical breast cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Tong LiThe Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: t.li@sydney.edu.au.
Jennifer IsautierSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Janie M LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA.
M Luke MarinovichThe Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Nehmat HoussamiThe Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence on the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in populations at increased risk of breast cancer. Our objective was to systematically review evidence on the performance of DBT versus digital mammography (DM) in women with a family history of breast cancer (FHBC).

methodsWe searched 5 databases (2011-January 2024) for studies comparing DBT and DM in women with a FHBC that reported any measure of cancer detection, recall, sensitivity and specificity. Findings were presented using a descriptive and narrative approach. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C.

resultsFive (4 screening, 1 diagnostic) studies were included (total 3089 DBT, 3024 DM) with most (4/5) being prospective including 1 RCT. All studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias or applicability concern. Four screening studies reported recall rate (range: DBT: 2.7%-4.5%, DM: 2.8%-11.5%) with 3 reporting DBT had lower rates than DM. Cancer detection rates (CDR) were reported in the same studies (DBT: 5.1-11.6 per 1000, DM: 3.8-8.3); 3 reported higher CDR for DBT (vs. DM), and 1 reported same CDR for both. Compared with DM, higher values for sensitivity, specificity and PPV for DBT were reported in 2 studies.

conclusionThis review provides early evidence that DBT may outperform DM for screening women with a FHBC. Our findings support further evaluation of DBT in this population. However, summarized findings were based on few studies and participants, and high-quality studies with improved methodology are needed to address biases identified in our review.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyFemaleHumansSensitivity and Specificity3D-mammographyBreast neoplasmsBreast screeningEarly detection of cancerRecall rate

Identifiers

PMID39424451
PMCPMC12265885

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.