Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38536530›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2024

The paradox of MRI for breast cancer screening: high-risk and dense breasts-available evidence and current practice.

Francesco Sardanelli, Veronica Magni, Gabriele Rossini, Fleur Kilburn-Toppin, Nuala A Healy, Fiona J Gilbert

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.4field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. European Cancer Prevention Organization on cancer screening: an expert panel position paper.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Francesco SardanelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, Milano, 20133, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6545-9427
Veronica MagniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, Milano, 20133, Italy. veronica.magni@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4240-0059
Gabriele RossiniPostgraduate School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milano, 20122, Italy.
Fleur Kilburn-ToppinCambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrookes' Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, UK.
Nuala A HealyCambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrookes' Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, UK.
Fiona J GilbertDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Level 5, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, UK.
University of Milan · ITCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the mid-1990s, the identification of BRCA1/2 genes for breast cancer susceptibility led to testing breast MRI accuracy in screening women at increased risk. From 2000 onwards, ten intraindividual comparative studies showed the marked superiority of MRI: the sensitivity ranged 25-58% for mammography, 33-52% for ultrasound, 48-67% for mammography plus ultrasound, and 71-100% for MRI; specificity 93-100%, 91-98%, 89-98%, and 81-98%, respectively. Based on the available evidence, in 2006-2007, the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the American Cancer Society recommended MRI screening of high-risk women, followed by other international guidelines. Despite evidence-based medicine ideally requiring randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for policy changes regarding screening procedures, breast MRI for high-risk screening was adopted in many countries worldwide. In 2019, the results of the "DENSE" RCT were published in favour of breast MRI screening of women with extremely dense breasts compared to mammography alone, showing a reduction of more than 80% of the interval cancer rate in women who attended MRI screening. Even though international recommendations in favour of this practice were issued, substantial obstacles still prevent health systems from adopting breast MRI for screening women with extremely dense breasts. A paradox is evident: we adopted a screening procedure without evidence from RCTs, and now that we have this level-1 evidence for the same procedure, we fail to do so. This critical review tries to explain the differences between the two cases, as examples of the complex pathways of translating radiological research into everyday practice.Critical relevance statement The high-level evidence in favour of breast MRI screening of women with extremely dense breasts is failing to persuade policy makers to translate this into clinical practice.Key points• Breast MRI screening of high-risk women was adopted on basis of the evidence provided by test accuracy comparative studies showing an MRI performance greatly superior to that of mammography.• Breast MRI screening of women with extremely dense breasts has not been adopted although the evidence of a large reduction in interval cancer rate from a RCT.• We illustrate the differences between the two cases, as an example of the complex ways of translation of radiological research in clinical practice according to the EBM theory.

Indexed as

Breast densityBreast neoplasmsMagnetic resonance imagingMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID38536530
PMCPMC10973307
OpenAlexW4393234004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.