Fewer Recalls with Synthesized Mammography Plus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
The use of synthesized mammography instead of additional full-field digital mammography has no significant effect on biopsy rate.
Synthesized mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) lowers recall rate, according to a study published in the journal Academic Radiology.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md., and the University of Wisconsin in Madison sought to evaluate the screening performance of DBT combined with SM versus combined with full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
The researchers retrospectively reviewed 7,745 screening studies utilizing FFDM plus DBT and 14,776 with SM plus DBT. They compared recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), positive predictive value 3 (PPV3), and cancer detection rate (CDR) between the two groups.
The results showed the overall recall rate was 7.06 percent in the SM + DBT cohort, which was significantly lower compared to 7.63 percent in the FFDM + DBT cohort. There was no difference in biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR between the two groups.
The researchers concluded that their findings support the use of SM for patients undergoing screening with DBT.
Newsletter
Stay at the forefront of radiology with the Diagnostic Imaging newsletter, delivering the latest news, clinical insights, and imaging advancements for today’s radiologists.
Mammography Study: AI Facilitates Greater Accuracy and Longer Fixation Time on Suspicious Areas
July 8th 2025While noting no differences in sensitivity, specificity or reading time with adjunctive AI for mammography screening, the authors of a new study noted a 4 percent higher AUC and increased fixation time on lesion regions.
Considering Breast- and Lesion-Level Assessments with Mammography AI: What New Research Reveals
June 27th 2025While there was a decline of AUC for mammography AI software from breast-level assessments to lesion-level evaluation, the authors of a new study, involving 1,200 women, found that AI offered over a seven percent higher AUC for lesion-level interpretation in comparison to unassisted expert readers.
