Observational studyJAMA internal medicine2019
Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.
Observational study in JAMA internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 49 papers, 3 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 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
- Prognostic value of ultrasound Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System for disease-free survival in early-stage breast cancer: a retrospective study (2011-2018).Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Surgical Perspective on the Updated American College of Radiology Supplemental Screening Guidelines for Breast Density.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Plasma proteome-metabolome signatures enable non-invasive early detection and lymph node risk stratification in breast cancer.Molecular cancer · 2026Article
- Supplemental Breast Ultrasound in Mammography Screening for Women with Critically Dense Breasts.Cancers · 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
- Application of CAD Systems in Breast Cancer Diagnosis Using Machine Learning Techniques: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 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
- Subgroup evaluation to understand performance gaps in deep learning-based classification of regions of interest on mammography.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Ultrasound-based deep learning radiomics for multi-stage assisted diagnosis in reducing unnecessary biopsies of BI-RADS 4A lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and Low-Energy Imaging with or without Supplemental Whole-Breast US in Breast Cancer Detection.Radiology · 2025Observational
- Advances in breast cancer diagnosis: a comprehensive review of imaging, biosensors, and emerging wearable technologies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- New progress in imaging diagnosis and immunotherapy of breast cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Current Strategies to Reducing Interval Breast Cancers: A Systematic Review.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2025Review
- The value of contrast-enhanced energy-spectrum mammography combined with clinical indicators in detecting breast cancer in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Integrative hybrid deep learning for enhanced breast cancer diagnosis: leveraging the Wisconsin Breast Cancer Database and the CBIS-DDSM dataset.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Current advance of nanotechnology in diagnosis and treatment for malignant tumors.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Whole-breast ultrasonography has been advocated to supplement screening mammography to improve outcomes in women with dense breasts. Objective: To determine the performance of screening mammography plus screening ultrasonography compared with screening mammography alone in community practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study. Two Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected data on screening mammography with vs without same-day breast ultrasonography from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2013. The dates of analysis were March 2014 to December 2018. A total of 6081 screening mammography plus same-day screening ultrasonography examinations in 3386 women were propensity score matched 1:5 to 30 062 screening mammograms without screening ultrasonography in 15 176 women from a sample of 113 293 mammograms. Exclusion criteria included a personal history of breast cancer and self-reported breast symptoms. Exposures: Screening mammography with vs without screening ultrasonography. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer detection rate and rates of interval cancer, false-positive biopsy recommendation, short-interval follow-up, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation were estimated and compared using log binomial regression. Results: Screening mammography with vs without ultrasonography examinations was performed more often in women with dense breasts (74.3% [n = 4317 of 5810] vs 35.9% [n = 39 928 of 111 306] in the overall sample), in women who were younger than 50 years (49.7% [n = 3022 of 6081] vs 31.7% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]), and in women with a family history of breast cancer (42.9% [n = 2595 of 6055] vs 15.0% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]). While 21.4% (n = 1154 of 5392) of screening ultrasonography examinations were performed in women with high or very high (≥2.50%) Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk scores, 53.6% (n = 2889 of 5392) had low or average (<1.67%) risk. Comparing mammography plus ultrasonography with mammography alone, the cancer detection rate was similar at 5.4 vs 5.5 per 1000 screens (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.68), as were interval cancer rates at 1.5 vs 1.9 per 1000 screens (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.33-1.37). The false-positive biopsy rates were significantly higher at 52.0 vs 22.2 per 1000 screens (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.93-2.58), as was short-interval follow-up at 3.9% vs 1.1% (RR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.60-3.70). The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was significantly lower at 9.5% vs 21.4% (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71). Conclusions and Relevance: In a relatively young population of women at low, intermediate, and high breast cancer risk, these results suggest that the benefits of supplemental ultrasonography screening may not outweigh associated harms.
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.