OBJECTIVE: To determine what percentage of @entity5 , detected by screening ultrasonography (US), were detectable by full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four consecutive @entity1 in whom mammography was negatively interpreted and supplementary screening US initially detected @entity0 at outside hospitals underwent both FFDM and DBT. We excluded cases with overt suspicious findings on repeat mammography and ineligible cases. In the remaining 41 cases, three radiologists who were blinded to @entity5 location, even though they were aware that they had @entity0 independently reviewed both FFDM and DBT. The reference standard was the reference FFDM made by two unblinded reviewers who were aware of the @entity5 location and shape on DBT, US, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The visibility score based on the correct marking was compared between FFDM and DBT. RESULTS: Among the 41 cases, the @entity5 were visible in 25 (61.0%) on FFDM and in 34 (82.9%) on DBT (P  =  0.047) by the unblinded review. In the blinded analysis, the @entity5 were significantly more "constantly visible" in the three radiologists on DBT than on FFDM [53.7% (22/41) vs. 26.8% (11/41), respectively, P  =  0.013]. The dominant lesion type was "focal asymmetry" on DBT (39.0%) and "asymmetry" on FFDM (31.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that 54% of @entity5 that were detected by US and were not evident on 2D mammography were detectable by screening using DBT. Additional 29% of @entity5 were visualized on DBT, when the area of concern was known.

Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in ultrasonography-detected XXXX .

@entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumor', 'cancers'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women'] @entity0 :: ('MESH:D001943', 'Disease') :: ['breast cancers']
@entity0 :: (MESH:D001943,Disease) :: ['breast cancers']
