I wonder how much difference there really is with the older tech based on looking at outcomes. For standard surveillance, does the new 3D dental xray actually benefit me? Granted the cost is low (<10% normal yearly exposure), but I still wonder.
For CT vs. XRay there have already been 2 long term randomized controlled trials that look at outcomes for lung cancer screening. PLCO, the XRay study, was not effective in improving long term outcomes like mortality. NLST, the CT study, showed a 20% reduction in mortality. With more modern techniques that actually look at the tumor in 3D NELSON in Europe has seen even better mortality reduction.
DBT is newer so A) Radiologists are not as good at reading it yet B) the long term evidence hasn't accumulated yet, but I am definitely optimistic that it will present a big improvement over the previous state of the art.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this false positive number is already better than the existing state of the art for 2D.