ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2025
Impact of breast size and composition on the accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography in breast cancer screening.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating multi-omics and clinical management in breast cancer: a comprehensive review.Discover oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of mammography in breast cancer screening is influenced by different factors such as breast composition. However, previous studies did not evaluate the impact of breast size on examination accuracy. This study aimed to investigate the influence of breast size on the accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography in breast cancer screening using compressed breast thickness (CBT) on mammography as an indicator of breast size.
methodsThis study included Japanese women in their 40 s who underwent mammography alone (MG group) or mammography with adjunctive ultrasonography (MG + US group) at the Iwate Cancer Society (Iwate, Japan) in 2018 and 2019. Based on CBT, the participants were further divided into the L group (< 30 mm) and U group (≥ 30 mm). The recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value of the L and U groups based on screening method and breast size were evaluated.
resultsOf 15,897 patients, 10,162 and 5735 underwent mammography alone and mammography with adjunctive ultrasonography, respectively. In the L group, the MG and MG + US groups did not significantly differ in terms of recall rate (1.9%, 95% CI 1.4-2.6 vs 1.9%, 1.2-2.9; p = 0.972). Moreover, the MG + US group had a higher cancer detection rate than the MG group. However, the difference was not significant (0.20%, 0.05-0.51 vs 0.63%, 0.25-1.29; p = 0.054). In the U group, the MG + US group had a significantly higher recall rate than the MG group (2.2%, 1.9-2.5 vs 2.9%, 2.5-3.4; p < 0.05). Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the cancer detection rate (0.15%, 0.08-0.25 vs 0.28%, 0.15-0.48; p = 0.099).
conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this study first showed that breast size, in addition to breast composition, influences the accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography in breast cancer screening. Hence, screening methods tailored to individual breast characteristics should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39751707What 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.