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
. 2025 Jun 1;117(6):1271-1275.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djae272.

Supplemental breast cancer screening after negative mammography in US women with dense breasts

Affiliations

Supplemental breast cancer screening after negative mammography in US women with dense breasts

Victoria M Foster et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Abstract

The extent and determinants of supplemental screening among women with dense breasts are unclear. We evaluated a retrospective cohort of 498 855 women aged 40-74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts who obtained 1 176 251 negative screening mammography examinations during 2011-2019 in the United States. Overall, 2.8% and 0.3% of mammograms had supplemental ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 1 year, respectively. Onsite availability was associated with ultrasound (odds ratio [OR] = 4.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.21 to 4.49) but not MRI (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.04). Facility academic affiliation and for-profit status were inversely associated with supplemental ultrasound (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.57, and OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.86, respectively) and positively associated with supplemental MRI (OR = 3.04, 95% CI = 2.86 to 3.46, and OR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.12, respectively). Supplemental screening was more likely to occur after passage of state-specific density notification laws than before passage (OR = 3.56, 95% CI = 3.30 to 3.84, and OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.60 to 2.00, respectively). These results show that supplemental breast imaging utilization has been uncommon and was related to facility factors and density legislation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Comment in

References

    1. Kerlikowske K, Chen S, Golmakani MK, et al.Cumulative advanced breast cancer risk prediction model developed in a screening mammography population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:676-685. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berg WA, Rafferty EA, Friedewald SM, et al.Screening algorithms in dense breasts: AJR expert panel narrative review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216:275-294. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Weinstein SP, Slanetz PJ, Lewin AA, et al.; Expert Panel on Breast Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria(R) supplemental breast cancer screening based on breast density. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18:S456-S473. - PubMed
    1. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al.; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75-89. - PubMed
    1. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, et al. Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:268-78. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms