Tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: Methodology and findings from 3 large cohort studies
| Author, year | Study design and location | No. of participants or examinations | Cancer detection rates (per 1,000)a | Recall rates (%)a | Positive predictive values (%)a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Houssami et al8 2014 (STORM trial) | Prospective population-based cohort in Italy Single and double readingb | 7,292c | 7.5 vs 4.8 | 3.6 vs 4.2 | 21 vs 11.4 |
| Skaane et al5 2013 (Oslo trial) | Prospective cohort in Norway (interim analysis) Double reading | 12,631 | 8.0 vs 6.1 | 6.1 vs 6.7 | 28.5 vs 29.1 |
| Friedewald et al11 2014 | Retrospective cohort in multiple US states Single reading | 454,850d | 5.4 vs 4.2 | 9.1 vs 10.7 | 6.4 vs 4.3 |
↵a Combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus digital mammography (DM) vs digital mammography alone.
↵b Table includes single-reading results only.
↵c 5% of invited women declined DBT plus DM.
↵d 173,663 examinations with DBP plus DM, 281,187 with DM only.
STORM = Screening With Tomosynthesis or Standard Mammography