https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/3d-mammos-outperform-2d-per-5-yr-study https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/3d-mammos-outperf... https://www.c

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/3d-mammos-outperform-2d-per-5-yr-study https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/3d-mammos-outperf... https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/mammograms/limitations-of-mammograms.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-... Related articles on the subject. Something that should be kept in mind is that false positives should always be talked about alongside false negatives. There is no perfect test, and often in medicine there is an increase in one of those in order to decrease the other. "A false-negative mammogram looks normal even though breast cancer is present. Overall, screening mammograms miss about 1 in 8 breast cancer" It isn't discussed in the OP article, and I could not easily find something that differentiates false-negative rates in 2D vs 3D mammograms, but the cost of over-diagnosis might be worth it if that means less cancers go unnoticed in screenings.