ArticleRadiology2010
Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666.
Article in Radiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00072501 (Screening Breast Ultrasound in High-Risk Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 75 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Screening Breast Ultrasound in High-Risk Women
Who cites it
75 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Guideline
- Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Pooled it
- Patient preferences for development in MRI scanner design: a survey of claustrophobic patients in a randomized study.European radiology · 2021Trial
- High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.PloS one · 2013Trial
- Trial
- Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2011Trial
- Reduction of claustrophobia with short-bore versus open magnetic resonance imaging: a randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2011Trial
- Risk-Reducing Interventions in Women With Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Can AI Detect What Is Not Injected? Evaluation of Lesion Detection in Virtual Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI Using a Large-Scale AI Model Trained on GBCA-Enhanced Data.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Training AI to Improve Distinction of Triple-Negative Invasive Breast Cancer from Cysts and Fibroadenomas on Ultrasound.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Recent trends in the utilization of molecular breast imaging in the United States.Clinical imaging · 2026Article
- High reliability Ag/Ni/NiO nanowire-based SERS for cancer detection: a study on breast cancer.Nanoscale advances · 2026Article
- Characterizing the imaging environment for supine breast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable prediction of Ki-67 expression in breast cancer through integrated photoacoustic radiomics and clinical parameters.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Preliminary evaluation of image quality in supine breast MRI using a dedicated wearable coil and accelerometer-based motion correction.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Reducing breast biopsy at MRI: comparison of minimum ADC cutoff and mean ADC cutoff identified by the ECOG-ACRIN A6702 multicenter trial.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Awareness of magnetic resonance imaging for early detection of breast cancer: A cross-sectional study.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Can a low b-value diffusion-weighted imaging sequence replace the standard T2-weighted fluid-sensitive sequence in breast MRI? A single-center prospective study.European radiology · 2025Article
- Supplemental breast cancer screening after negative mammography in US women with dense breasts.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer MRI Screening of Patients After Multiplex Gene Panel Testing.JAMA network open · 2025Article
15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND
methodsWomen(n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants.
resultsOf 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons.
conclusionOf 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.