Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22474203›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2012

Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

Wendie A Berg, Zheng Zhang, Daniel Lehrer, Roberta A Jong, Etta D Pisano, Richard G Barr, Marcela Böhm-Vélez, Mary C Mahoney, W Phil Evans, Linda H Larsen and 9 more

5 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 401 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
401citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
47.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00072501 nacompletednot on this map

Screening Breast Ultrasound in High-Risk Women

TypeinterventionalSponsorAmerican College of Radiology Imaging NetworkRan2004ConditionsBreast CancerArmsbreast imaging study, comparison of screening methods, magnetic resonance imaging, radiomammography, ultrasound imaging
NCT02324894 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Initial Evaluation of Ultra FAST Breast Magnetic Resonance in Breast Cancer Screening: Comparative Study With Mammography and Ultrasound.

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrugmann University HospitalRan2015 to 2019Enrolled0ConditionsBreast CancerArmsMRI screening
NCT02977247 completednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

ARM 2: A Prospective, Multicenter, Multi-arm, Clinical Case Collection Program to Acquire Breast Image Data and Establish an Image Library of Exams for Use in Future Research Studies, Training, and Product Development Efforts.

TypeobservationalSponsorDelphinus Medical Technologies, Inc.Ran2016 to 2021Enrolled1,150ConditionsBreast NeoplasmsArmsNon-Interventional, Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound
NCT03257839 completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

ARM 1: A Prospective, Multicenter, Multi-arm, Clinical Case Collection Program to Acquire Breast Image Data and Establish an Image Library of Exams for Use in Future Research Studies, Training, and Product Development Efforts.

TypeobservationalSponsorDelphinus Medical Technologies, Inc.Ran2017 to 2021Enrolled7,409ConditionsBreast NeoplasmsArmsRoutine Full-Field Digital Mammography, Routine Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound
NCT07598084 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Artificial Intelligence Solution for Simplifying the Diagnostic Workflow of Breast MRI: Development and Clinical Validation of a Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Based Synthetic Contrast-Enhanced MRI System for Non-Contrast Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Risk Stratification

TypeobservationalSponsorPeking University People's HospitalRan2026 to 2027Enrolled12,000ConditionsBreast Neoplasms, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingArmsNon-contrast breast MRI diagnostic model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

401 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,157 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How Does ACR BI-RADSDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

341 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wendie A BergAmerican College of Radiology Imaging Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. wendieberg@gmail.com
Zheng Zhang
Daniel Lehrer
Roberta A Jong
Etta D Pisano
Richard G Barr
Marcela Böhm-Vélez
Mary C Mahoney
W Phil Evans
Linda H Larsen
Marilyn J Morton
Ellen B Mendelson
Dione M Farria
Jean B Cormack
Helga S Marques
Amanda Adams
Nolin M Yeh
Glenna Gabrielli
ACRIN 6666 Investigators
American College of Radiology · US

Funding

ARRA - ADOPT New Technologies for RDC/CDMSU01CA080098 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI SCHNALL, MITCHELL D. · 1999 to 2011
$182.7M
BIOSTATISTICS DATA MANAGEMENT CENTER FOR ACROINU01CA079778 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI GATSONIS, CONSTANTINE A. · 1999 to 2011
$48.6M
American College of Radiology Imaging NetworkU10CA080098 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI SCHNALL, MITCHELL D. · 2012 to 2013
$9.4M
Biostatistics Data Management Center for ACRINU10CA079778 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI GATSONIS, CONSTANTINE A. · 2013 to 2013
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS CA 79778NCI NIH HHS CA 80098NCI NIH HHS U01 CA079778NCI NIH HHS U01 CA080098NCI NIH HHS U10 CA079778NCI NIH HHS U10 CA080098
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextAnnual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening.

objectiveTo determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsFrom April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up.

main outcome measuresCancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate.

resultsA total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results.

conclusionThe addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings.

trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22474203
PMCPMC3891886
OpenAlexW2124653673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.