ArticleJournal of ultrasound2026
Additional ultrasound in women with dense breasts in a breast cancer-screening program based on digital breast tomosynthesis: evidences on cancer detection, false positives and associated costs.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast density is associated with increased risk of breast cancer (BC) and reduces mammography performance. Supplemental ultrasound (US) improves the performance of mammography screening programs in women with dense breasts but only few evidences are available about its added value when digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is performed. Our study evaluated the contribution of US in detecting BC in women with dense breasts in a screening program based on DBT. From February 2022 to October 2023, asymptomatic women (age range, 50-69 years) attending BC Screening in Verona, Italy, were prospectively recruited. Women underwent DBT and automatic breast density evaluation. Participants with negative DBT and dense breasts were invited to additional breast US. 785/12351 (6.3%) consecutive eligible women had dense breasts. BC was suspected on the basis of DBT in 106/785 (13.5%) women and 5 cancers were diagnosed [cancer detection rate (CDR) for DBT = 6.37 per 1000 screens]. 584/679 (86.0%) DBT-negative patients agreed to US and the incremental CDR of US was 1.7 per 1000 women (1/584). US caused additional investigations in 6/584 (1.03%) women (6 core biopsies) with a benign result in 5/584 (0.86%). The cost per each additional cancer detected by US only was € 25,961,95. In conclusion, in a DBT-based screening setting, the benefit of adding US for women with dense breasts is limited and entails substantial costs.
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.