Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026

Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive
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.
More Related Videos
15:48Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
06:03Integrating Augmented Reality Tools in Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Prognostication and Diagnosis
Published on: February 6, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Prevention
Some...
Preventive Healthcare Services
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT