. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: Radiol Clin North Am. 2014 Feb 18;52(3):499–518. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2013.11.013

Table 2. DBT Diagnostic studies.

Author	Study Format	Patient Mix	Diagnostic Outcomes
Rafferty et al,⁵ 2013	Two enriched reader studies.	312	Reduction in callback from 6% to 67% (P<.03).
Mitchell et al,⁷ 2012	Prospective study, patients recalled from film-screen screening. DM and DBT and callback.	738 patients including 204 breast cancers	Improved accuracy (AUC) when DBT added to film or film with FFDM for masses (not calcifications). Improved cancer detection for fatty and dense breasts.
Skaane et al,⁴ 2012	Reader study, mix of symptomatic and patients recalled from screening. Patients had two-view DBT.	129 patients with 27 breast cancer	DBT concordant with no statistical increase in callback; however, two additional cancers detected by DBT alone (8% increase in cancer detection).
Bernardi et al,¹⁷ 2012	Prospective integrating DBT to assess recalled patient from DM screening (7 readers).	158 consecutive patients with 21 cancers	DBT recalled all cancer cases and DBT reduced FP callback by 74%. Similar cancer detection rates.
Nozroozian et al,¹⁶ 2012	Enriched reader study (4 readers) comparing spot compression DM vs DBT in assessment of masses.	67 patients with breast masses (30 cancer, 37 benign)	No statistical difference in accuracy but mass visibility rating slightly better with DBT.
Svahn et al,¹³ 2010	Reader study (5 readers) evaluating subtle screen detected or diagnostic lesions.	Comparing two-view DM vs one-view DM/DBT vs one-view DBT only	Highest accuracy with DM plus DBT (P<.05).
Poplack et al,²¹ 2007	Prospective evaluation of the impact of DBT on consecutive recalls from screening.	98 recalls including 5 breast cancers	40% reduction in FP recall with DBT. No missed cancers. Subjective assessment of lesion conspicuity: DBT equivalent or superior in 89%. However, in calcification-only lesions, DBT inferior.
Tagliaficio et al,²² 2012	Prospective study, patients recalled from screening (2 readers) compared spot compression vs DBT.	52 consecutive recalls with 9 cancers, accuracy and conspicuity assessed	No statistical difference in DM spot compression vs DBT; however, lesion conspicuity considered significantly better with DBT (P<.001).
Gennaro et al,²³ 2010	Reader study (6 readers) evaluating lesions seen on DM to evaluation with one-view, MLO DBT.	200 patients with 63 cancers	Overall performance of one-view DBT was similar to conventional DM.