ReviewEuropean radiology2019
Breast density implications and supplemental screening.
Review in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 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
94 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 208 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Clinical guidelines for the management of mammographic density: a systematic review of breast screening guidelines worldwide.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Pooled 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
- The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of population based breast density notification: multisite parallel arm randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
- Investigation of the effectiveness of cooling spray on mammography comfort.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- ABUS-ResMask-Net: ABUS Lesion Classification Network Design with ResMask Module and BI-RADS Content-Awareness Auxiliary Tasks.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- DensiThAI: A Multi-View Deep Learning Framework for Breast Density Estimation Using Infrared Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Intrasystem Repeatability of S-Detect for Breast Ultrasound Classification With Identical Static Images: Single-Center Retrospective Repeatability Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Acceptance, experience, and feedback for supplemental screening in dense breasts among women participating in the BRAID trial.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Patient Preference and Adherence in Mammography Screening: A Narrative Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- Assessing the Effect of Breast Density on Screening Performance in a Population-Based Program.The breast journal · 2026Article
- Article
- The effect of smoking on breast cancer screening results in female population: a study in Wu wei, China.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Discovery and validation of cell-free DNA methylation markers for specific diagnosis, differentiation from benign tumors, and prognosis of breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Deep Learning in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.MedComm · 2025Review
- Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Non-Mass Enhancement on MRI 10 Years Before Mammographic Microcalcifications.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2025Article
- Does Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Outperform Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detection and Characterization of Breast Lesions or Vice Versa?Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of diagnostic performance of automatic breast ultrasound and spectral mammography as complementary methods to mammography examination.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been widely implemented in place of 2D mammography, although it is less effective in women with extremely dense breasts. Breast ultrasound detects additional early-stage, invasive breast cancers when combined with mammography; however, its relevant limitations, including the shortage of trained operators, operator dependence and small field of view, have limited its widespread implementation. Automated breast sonography (ABS) is a promising technique but the time to interpret and false-positive rates need to be improved. Supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk women reduces late-stage disease; abbreviated MRI protocols may reduce cost and increase accessibility to women of average risk with dense breasts. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and molecular breast imaging improve cancer detection but require further validation for screening and direct biopsy guidance should be implemented for any screening modality. This article reviews the status of screening women with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • The sensitivity of mammography is reduced in women with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with US detects early-stage, invasive breast cancers. • Tomosynthesis reduces recall rate and increases cancer detection rate but is less effective in women with extremely dense breasts. • Screening MRI improves early diagnosis of breast cancer more than ultrasound and is currently recommended for women at high risk. Risk assessment is needed, to include breast density, to ascertain who should start early annual MRI 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.