Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 13, 2026
A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program
Published on: April 19, 2019
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a
Solveig Hofvind1, Tone Hovda1, Åsne S Holen1
1From the Cancer Registry of Norway, PO Box 5313, Majorstuen, Oslo 0304, Norway (S.H., Å.S.H.); Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway (S.H.); Departments of Radiology (T.H., H.B., L.R.) and Pathology (D.P.), Vestre Viken Hospital, Drammen, Norway; University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Wash (C.I.L.); University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Wash (C.I.L.); Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Seattle, Wash (C.I.L.); Departments of Radiology (J.A., E.V.) and Pathology (P. Suhrke), Vestfold Hospital, Tønsberg, Norway; and Departments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (S.H.B.B., R.G., P. Skaane) and Pathology (J.L.), Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract:
Purpose To compare the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) with that of digital mammography (DM) in a population-based mammographic screening program. Materials and Methods In this prospective cohort study, data from 37 185 women screened with DBT and SM and from 61 742 women screened with DM as part of a population-based screening program in 2014 and 2015 were included. Early performance measures, including recall rate due to abnormal mammographic findings, rate of screen-detected breast cancer, positive predictive value of recall, positive predictive value of needle biopsy, histopathologic type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymph node involvement, hormonal status, Ki-67 level, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were compared in women who underwent DBT and SM screening and in those who underwent DM screening by using χ2 tests, two-sample unpaired t tests, and tests of proportions. Results Recall rates were 3.4% for DBT and SM screening and 3.3% for DM screening (P = .563). DBT and SM screening showed a significantly higher rate of screen-detected cancer compared with DM screening (9.4 vs 6.1 cancers per 1000 patients screened, respectively; P < .001). The rate of detection of tumors 10 mm or smaller was 3.2 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM and 1.8 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001), and the rate of grade 1 tumors was 3.3 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM versus 1.4 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001). On the basis of immunohistochemical analyses, rates of lymph node involvement and tumor subtypes did not differ between women who underwent DBT and SM screening and those who underwent DM screening. Conclusion DBT and SM screening increased the detection rate of histologically favorable tumors compared with that attained with DM screening. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Related Concept Videos
01:30Social Foundations of Self IV: Self in Digital Communication
02:04Conservation of Small Populations
01:25What is Population Genetics?
00:57Population Growth
02:55Synthetic Biology
Golden rice
Golden rice is a genetically modified...
00:30What are Populations and Communities?