ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Breast density effect on the sensitivity of digital screening mammography in a UK cohort.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Implementing a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- A comparison of tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers and their relationship with breast density and AJCC prognostic stage in a UK screening cohort.European radiology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography for women with extremely dense breasts in a national breast cancer screening program: a micro-simulation study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Impact of AI assistance on reading time, cancer detection rate, and abnormal interpretation rate in screening and diagnostic mammography: a prospective alternating-month study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of artificial intelligence for cancer detection in the UK breast screening programme.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Exploring shear-wave elastography and apparent diffusion coefficient in breast lesion characterization: diagnostic accuracy and inter-modality correlation.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Circulating Thioredoxin 1 as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Detection: A Multicenter Clinical Validation Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- DensiThAI: A Multi-View Deep Learning Framework for Breast Density Estimation Using Infrared Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of an annotation-free artificial intelligence system for simultaneous detection and diagnosis on breast ultrasonography: a multireader, multicase study across diverse healthcare professionals.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Comparison of three algorithms to measure breast density on mammograms in a population-based screening cohort.European radiology · 2026Article
- Metabolic Fingerprinting of Urine Reveals Metabolite Changes in Women With Breast Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Supplemental Breast Ultrasound in Mammography Screening for Women with Critically Dense Breasts.Cancers · 2026Article
- Electrical Property Enhancement of a Breast-Fat-Equivalent Phantom for Microwave Mammography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The evidence for the use of peripheral blood indices in the diagnosis of breast cancer.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Review
- Bridging across the pacific: overview of the 33rd annual meeting of the Japanese breast cancer society.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- Enhanced breast cancer detection framework based on YOLOv11n with multi-scale feature calibration.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of Clinical Performance Between Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and MammouS-N.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Acceptance, experience, and feedback for supplemental screening in dense breasts among women participating in the BRAID trial.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Deep Learning-Derived Malignancy Scoring in Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype Assessment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the performance of breast cancer screening by category of breast density and age in a UK screening cohort.
methodsRaw full-field digital mammography data from a single site in the UK, forming a consecutive 3-year cohort of women aged 50 to 70 years from 2016 to 2018, were obtained retrospectively. Breast density was assessed using Volpara software. Examinations were grouped by density category and age group (50-60 and 61-70 years) to analyse screening performance. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the association between density categories and age groups. Volumetric breast density was assessed as a binary classifier of interval cancers (ICs) to find an optimal density threshold.
resultsForty-nine thousand nine-hundred forty-eight screening examinations (409 screen-detected cancers (SDCs) and 205 ICs) were included in the analysis. Mammographic sensitivity, SDC/(SDC + IC), decreased with increasing breast density from 75.0% for density a (p = 0.839, comparisons made to category b), to 73.5%, 59.8% (p = 0.001), and 51.3% (p < 0.001) in categories b, c, and d, respectively. IC rates were highest in the densest categories with rates of 1.8 (p = 0.039), 3.2, 5.7 (p < 0.001), and 7.9 (p < 0.001) per thousand for categories a, b, c, and d, respectively. The recall rate increased with breast density, leading to more false positive recalls, especially in the younger age group. There was no significant difference between the optimal density threshold found, 6.85, and that Volpara defined as the b/c boundary, 7.5.
conclusionsThe performance of screening is significantly reduced with increasing density with IC rates in the densest category four times higher than in women with fatty breasts. False positives are a particular issue for the younger subgroup without prior examinations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In women attending screening there is significant underdiagnosis of breast cancer in those with dense breasts, most marked in the highest density category but still three times higher than in women with fatty breasts in the second highest category. KEY POINTS: Breast density can mask cancers leading to underdiagnosis on mammography. Interval cancer rate increased with breast density categories 'a' to 'd'; 1.8 to 7.9 per thousand. Recall rates increased with increasing breast density, leading to more false positive recalls.
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.