dc.contributor.author | Moshina, Nataliia | |
dc.contributor.author | Gräwingholt, Axel | |
dc.contributor.author | Lång, Kristina | |
dc.contributor.author | Mann, Ritse | |
dc.contributor.author | Hovda, Tone | |
dc.contributor.author | Hoff, Solveig Kristin Roth | |
dc.contributor.author | Skaane, Per | |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Christoph I. | |
dc.contributor.author | Aase, Hildegunn Siv | |
dc.contributor.author | Aslaksen, Aslak Bjarne | |
dc.contributor.author | Hofvind, Solveig Sand-Hanssen | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-22T11:24:45Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-08-22T11:24:45Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2024-02-08 | |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives - The randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT + SM) versus digital mammography (DM) (the To-Be 1 trial), 2016–2017, did not result in higher cancer detection for DBT + SM. We aimed to determine if negative cases prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancers from DBT + SM were due to interpretive error.<p>
<p>Methods - Five external breast radiologists performed the individual blinded review of 239 screening examinations (90 true negative, 39 false positive, 19 prior to interval cancer, and 91 prior to consecutive screen-detected cancer) and the informed consensus review of examinations prior to interval and screen-detected cancers (n = 110). The reviewers marked suspicious findings with a score of 1–5 (probability of malignancy). A case was false negative if ≥ 2 radiologists assigned the cancer site with a score of ≥ 2 in the blinded review and if the case was assigned as false negative by a consensus in the informed review.<p>
<p>Results - In the informed review, 5.3% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 18.7% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were considered false negative. In the blinded review, 10.6% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 42.9% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were scored ≥ 2. A score of ≥ 2 was assigned to 47.8% of negative and 89.7% of false positive examinations.<p>
<p>Conclusions - The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT + SM versus DM in the To-Be 1 trial is complex and not due to interpretive error alone. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Moshina, Gräwingholt, Lång, Mann, Hovda, Hoff, Skaane, Lee, Aase, Aslaksen, Hofvind. Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial. Insight into Imaging. 2024;15(1) | |
dc.identifier.cristinID | FRIDAID 2259146 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/s13244-023-01604-5 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1869-4101 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/34368 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | SAGE Publications | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | Insight into Imaging | |
dc.rights.holder | Copyright 2024 The Author(s) | en_US |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) | en_US |
dc.title | Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial | en_US |
dc.type.version | publishedVersion | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.type | Tidsskriftartikkel | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | en_US |