Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Jul;23(5):478-490.
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.04.003. Epub 2023 Apr 19.

Performance of Supplemental Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: Findings From an Umbrella Review and Primary Studies Analysis

Affiliations
Free article
Meta-Analysis

Performance of Supplemental Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: Findings From an Umbrella Review and Primary Studies Analysis

Franziska Lobig et al. Clin Breast Cancer. 2023 Jul.
Free article

Abstract

Breast cancer screening performance of supplemental imaging modalities by breast density and breast cancer risk has not been widely studied, and the optimal choice of modality for women with dense breasts remains unclear in clinical practice and guidelines. This systematic review aimed to assess breast cancer screening performance of supplemental imaging modalities for women with dense breasts, by breast cancer risk. Systematic reviews (SRs) in 2000 to 2021, and primary studies in 2019 to 2021, on outcomes of supplemental screening modalities (digital breast tomography [DBT], MRI (full/abbreviated protocol), contrast enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (hand-held [HHUS]/automated [ABUS]) in women with dense breasts (BI-RADS C&D) were identified. None of the SRs analyzed outcomes by cancer risk. Meta-analysis of the primary studies was not feasible due to lack of studies (MRI, CEM, DBT) or methodological heterogeneity (ultrasound); therefore, findings were summarized narratively. For average risk, a single MRI trial reported a superior screening performance (higher cancer detection rate [CDR] and lower interval cancer rate [ICR]) compared to HHUS, ABUS and DBT. For intermediate risk, ultrasound was the only modality assessed, but accuracy estimates ranged widely. For mixed risk, a single CEM study reported the highest CDR, but included a high proportion of women with intermediate risk. This systematic review does not allow a complete comparison of supplemental screening modalities for dense breast populations by breast cancer risk. However, the data suggest that MRI and CEM might generally offer superior screening performance versus other modalities. Further studies of screening modalities are urgently required.

Keywords: Breast cancer screening; Contrast-enhanced mammography; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest The authors have no other conflicts of interest. Authors who are not employees of or consultants for the pharmaceutical industry (EM and GN) had control of inclusion of any data and information that might otherwise present a conflict of interest.

Publication types