BACKGROUND: Screening mammography has lower sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts, who experience higher breast cancer risk. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of reproducibility of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categorization and test performance and clinical outcomes of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts and negative mammography results. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database from January 2000 to July 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting BI-RADS density reproducibility or supplemental screening results for women with dense breasts. DATA EXTRACTION: Quality assessment and abstraction of 24 studies from 7 countries; 6 studies were good-quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three good-quality studies reported reproducibility of BI-RADS density; 13% to 19% of women were recategorized between "dense" and "nondense" at subsequent screening. Two good-quality studies reported that sensitivity of ultrasonography for women with negative mammography results ranged from 80% to 83%; specificity, from 86% to 94%; and positive predictive value (PPV), from 3% to 8%. The sensitivity of MRI ranged from 75% to 100%; specificity, from 78% to 94%; and PPV, from 3% to 33% (3 studies). Rates of additional cancer detection with ultrasonography were 4.4 per 1000 examinations (89% to 93% invasive); recall rates were 14%. Use of MRI detected 3.5 to 28.6 additional cancer cases per 1000 examinations (34% to 86% invasive); recall rates were 12% to 24%. Rates of cancer detection with DBT increased by 1.4 to 2.5 per 1000 examinations compared with mammography alone (3 studies). Recall rates ranged from 7% to 11%, compared with 7% to 17% with mammography alone. No studies examined breast cancer outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Good-quality evidence was sparse. Studies were small and CIs were wide. Definitions of recall were absent or inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Density ratings may be recategorized on serial screening mammography. Supplemental screening of women with dense breasts finds additional breast cancer but increases false-positive results. Use of DBT may reduce recall rates. Effects of supplemental screening on breast cancer outcomes remain unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
BACKGROUND: Screening mammography has lower sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts, who experience higher breast cancer risk. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of reproducibility of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categorization and test performance and clinical outcomes of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts and negative mammography results. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database from January 2000 to July 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting BI-RADS density reproducibility or supplemental screening results for women with dense breasts. DATA EXTRACTION: Quality assessment and abstraction of 24 studies from 7 countries; 6 studies were good-quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three good-quality studies reported reproducibility of BI-RADS density; 13% to 19% of women were recategorized between "dense" and "nondense" at subsequent screening. Two good-quality studies reported that sensitivity of ultrasonography for women with negative mammography results ranged from 80% to 83%; specificity, from 86% to 94%; and positive predictive value (PPV), from 3% to 8%. The sensitivity of MRI ranged from 75% to 100%; specificity, from 78% to 94%; and PPV, from 3% to 33% (3 studies). Rates of additional cancer detection with ultrasonography were 4.4 per 1000 examinations (89% to 93% invasive); recall rates were 14%. Use of MRI detected 3.5 to 28.6 additional cancer cases per 1000 examinations (34% to 86% invasive); recall rates were 12% to 24%. Rates of cancer detection with DBT increased by 1.4 to 2.5 per 1000 examinations compared with mammography alone (3 studies). Recall rates ranged from 7% to 11%, compared with 7% to 17% with mammography alone. No studies examined breast cancer outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Good-quality evidence was sparse. Studies were small and CIs were wide. Definitions of recall were absent or inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Density ratings may be recategorized on serial screening mammography. Supplemental screening of women with dense breasts finds additional breast cancer but increases false-positive results. Use of DBT may reduce recall rates. Effects of supplemental screening on breast cancer outcomes remain unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Authors: Charlotte C Gard; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Stephen H Taplin; Carolyn M Rutter Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: David Gur; Margarita L Zuley; Maria I Anello; Grace Y Rathfon; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Luisa Wallace; Amy Lu; Andriy I Bandos Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jennifer A Harvey; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta A Geller; Tracy L Onega Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joan L Bottorff; Pamela A Ratner; Joy L Johnson; T Gregory Hislop; Jane A Buxton; Cornelia Zeisser; Weihong Chen; Birgit Reime Journal: Can J Nurs Res Date: 2007-03
Authors: Gretchen L Gierach; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise A Brinton; Ghada N Farhat; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Catherine Schairer; Stephen H Taplin; Mark E Sherman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Marcela G del Carmen; Kevin S Hughes; Elkan Halpern; Elizabeth Rafferty; Daniel Kopans; Yuri R Parisky; Armando Sardi; Lisa Esserman; Steven Rust; James Michaelson Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Janie M Lee; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Robert A Smith; Louise M Henderson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Rakesh Bam; Patrick S Lown; Lawrence A Stern; Karina Sharma; Katheryne E Wilson; Gregory R Bean; Amelie M Lutz; Ramasamy Paulmurugan; Benjamin J Hackel; Jeremy Dahl; Lotfi Abou-Elkacem Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Susan H Busch; Jessica R Hoag; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Pamela R Soulos; Kelly A Kyanko; Cary P Gross Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Amy Fitzpatrick; Sarah Waugh; Michelle Carrera; Nancy R Kressin; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 5.128