Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

UC Davis

UC Davis Previously Published Works bannerUC Davis

Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Published Web Location

https://doi.org/10.7326/m15-1789
Abstract

Background

Screening mammography has lower sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts, who experience higher breast cancer risk.

Purpose

To perform a systematic review of reproducibility of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categorization and test performance and clinical outcomes of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts and negative mammography results.

Data sources

MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database from January 2000 to July 2015.

Study selection

Studies reporting BI-RADS density reproducibility or supplemental screening results for women with dense breasts.

Data extraction

Quality assessment and abstraction of 24 studies from 7 countries; 6 studies were good-quality.

Data synthesis

Three good-quality studies reported reproducibility of BI-RADS density; 13% to 19% of women were recategorized between "dense" and "nondense" at subsequent screening. Two good-quality studies reported that sensitivity of ultrasonography for women with negative mammography results ranged from 80% to 83%; specificity, from 86% to 94%; and positive predictive value (PPV), from 3% to 8%. The sensitivity of MRI ranged from 75% to 100%; specificity, from 78% to 94%; and PPV, from 3% to 33% (3 studies). Rates of additional cancer detection with ultrasonography were 4.4 per 1000 examinations (89% to 93% invasive); recall rates were 14%. Use of MRI detected 3.5 to 28.6 additional cancer cases per 1000 examinations (34% to 86% invasive); recall rates were 12% to 24%. Rates of cancer detection with DBT increased by 1.4 to 2.5 per 1000 examinations compared with mammography alone (3 studies). Recall rates ranged from 7% to 11%, compared with 7% to 17% with mammography alone. No studies examined breast cancer outcomes.

Limitations

Good-quality evidence was sparse. Studies were small and CIs were wide. Definitions of recall were absent or inconsistent.

Conclusion

Density ratings may be recategorized on serial screening mammography. Supplemental screening of women with dense breasts finds additional breast cancer but increases false-positive results. Use of DBT may reduce recall rates. Effects of supplemental screening on breast cancer outcomes remain unclear.

Primary funding source

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Current View