Trial reportJournal of the National Cancer Institute2016
Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666.
Trial report in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 141 papers, 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
141 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 306 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of artificial intelligence-assisted ultrasound elastography in classifying benign and malignant breast tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Explainable machine learning for breast cancer diagnosis from mammography and ultrasound images: a systematic review.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance AmongFrontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Detection Globally: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of global oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison of ultrasound and mammography for early diagnosis of breast cancer among Chinese women with suspected breast lesions: A prospective trial.Thoracic cancer · 2022Trial
- Review
- The value of multi-parametric ultrasonography nomogram in predicting nipple-areolar complex involvement in breast cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Identification and Localization of Breast Tumor Components via a Convolutional Neural Network Based on High-Frequency Ultrasound Combined With Histopathologic Registration: Prospective Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Integrated [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Differentiation of Benign and Malignant BI-RADS 4-5 Breast Lesions Using Ultrasound Localization Microscopy-Derived Microvascular Biomarkers: A Prospective Study.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Article
- Supplemental automated breast ultrasound in negative screening mammography: early-stage cancer detection in dense breasts with limited yield in non-dense breasts.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Case Report: A rare case of breast leiomyoma with literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Clinically Focused Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Breast Cancer Using SE and CBAM with Multi-Head Attention.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Breast tumor diagnosis via multimodal deep learning using ultrasound B-mode and Nakagami images.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Ultrasound evaluation of subcentimeter suspicious breast lesions: Correlation with histopathological findings and hormone receptor status.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted ultrasound screening for breast cancer in China: a prospective, clustered, controlled, population-based study.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcomes of automated breast ultrasound: considerations for screening modality selection, based on a prospective observational survey.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Identification of the implementation influencing factors of the organized breast cancer screening in Ordos city: from caregivers' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Breast MRI to Screen Women With Extremely Dense Breasts.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
81 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for breast cancer.
methodsTwo thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided.
resultsOne hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001).
conclusionsCancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.
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.