IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0315466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of digital breast tomosynthesis on screening performance and interval cancer rates compared to digital mammography: A meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xuewen Liu
  • Ting Yang
  • Juan Yao

Abstract

Background: The performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone, digital mammography (DM) plus DBT, and synthesized mammography (SM) plus DBT, in comparison to DM in breast cancer screening, remains a topic of ongoing debate. The effectiveness of these modalities in reducing interval cancer rates (ICR) is particularly contentious. Materials and methods: A database of data was searched for articles published until July 2024. Initially, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of DBT (DBT alone, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT) and DM were estimated. Additionally, the sensitivity of breast cancer screening and ICR for DBT alone, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT compared to DM. The characteristics of interval breast cancer were compared with those screening BC, alongside differences across various screening methods. Results: Eleven studies comparing DBT and DM were included. The sensitivity of DBT was higher than that of DM, with rates of 86% (95%CI: 81, 90) and 80% (95%CI: 76, 84), respectively. The specificities of both modalities were similar, recorded at 96% (95%CI: 95, 98) and 96% (95%CI: 95, 97), respectively. In comparison to DM, the screening sensitivities of DBT, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT were increased by 4.33% (95% CI: 1.52, 7.13), 6.29% (95% CI: 2.55, 10.03), and 5.22% (95% CI: 1.35, 9.10), respectively; however, the difference in the ICR was not statistically significant. Conclusion: DBT offers advantages in enhancing the sensitivity of breast cancer screening; however, its impact on ICR remains uncertain. Consequently, further research is necessary to comprehensively evaluate both the effectiveness of screening and the potential risks associated with DBT.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuewen Liu & Ting Yang & Juan Yao, 2025. "Impact of digital breast tomosynthesis on screening performance and interval cancer rates compared to digital mammography: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0315466
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315466
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315466&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0315466?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0315466. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.