ReviewOntario health technology assessment series2016
Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.
Review in Ontario health technology assessment series, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic reviews as a "lens of evidence": Determinants of cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- AI-Driven Breast Cancer Nuclei Segmentation, Classification, and Scoring in PR-IHC Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Oxidative stress and antioxidants in breast cancer: a double-edged sword.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- One-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Ontario, Canada: a model-based cost-utility analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024Article
- Breast ultrasound in Chinese hospitals: A cross-sectional study of the current status and influencing factors of BI-RADS utilization and diagnostic accuracy.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Article
- Ultrasound Image Features under Deep Learning in Breast Conservation Surgery for Breast Cancer.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Value of a breast imaging unit in the detection of breast cancer in Mexico.Ecancermedicalscience · 2021Article
- Review
- How can additional ultrasonography screening improve the detection of occult breast cancer in women with dense breasts?Polish journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Can Combined Screening of Ultrasound and Elastography Improve Breast Cancer Identification Compared with MRI in Women with Dense Breasts-a Multicenter Prospective Study.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Why the Gold Standard Approach by Mammography Demands Extension by Multiomics? Application of Liquid Biopsy miRNA Profiles to Breast Cancer Disease Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Quality assurance target for community-based breast cancer screening in China: a model simulation.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2018Review
- Comprehensive analysis of clinical utility of three-dimensional ultrasound for benign and malignant breast masses.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Budget impact analysis of a breast rapid diagnostic unit.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Less Than High Risk for Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2016Review
- Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound elastography for benign and malignant digestive system tumors.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening with mammography can detect breast cancer early, before clinical symptoms appear. Some cancers, however, are not captured with mammography screening alone. Ultrasound has been suggested as a safe adjunct screening tool that can detect breast cancers missed on mammography. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and cost burden of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography compared with mammography alone for screening women at average risk and at high risk for breast cancer.
methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBM Reviews, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from January 1998 to June 2015, for evidence of effectiveness, harms, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. Only studies evaluating the use of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in the specified populations were included. We also conducted a cost analysis to estimate the costs in Ontario over the next 5 years to fund ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in breast cancer screening for high-risk women who are contraindicated for MRI, the current standard of care to supplement mammography.
resultsNo studies in average-risk women met the inclusion criteria of the clinical review. We included 5 prospective, paired cohort studies in high-risk women, 4 of which were relevant to the Ontario context. Adjunct ultrasound identified between 2.3 and 5.9 additional breast cancers per 1,000 screens. The average pooled sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound was 53%, a statistically significant increase relative to mammography alone (absolute increase 13%; P < .05). The average pooled specificity of the combined test was 96%, an absolute increase in the false-positive rate of 2% relative to mammography screening alone. The GRADE for this body of evidence was low. Additional annual costs of using breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography for high-risk women in Ontario contraindicated for MRI would range from $15,500 to $30,250 in the next 5 years.
conclusionsWe found no evidence that evaluated the comparative effectiveness or diagnostic accuracy of screening breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography among average-risk women aged 50 years and over. In women at high risk of developing breast cancer, there is low-quality evidence that screening with mammography and adjunct ultrasound detects additional cases of disease, with improved sensitivity compared to mammography alone. Screening with adjunct ultrasound also increases the number of false-positive findings and subsequent biopsy recommendations. It is unclear if the use of screening breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography will reduce breast cancer-related mortality among high-risk women. The annual cost burden of using adjunct ultrasound to screen high-risk women who cannot receive MRI in Ontario would be small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27468326PMC4947971What 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.