title: Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged breasts. In radiographically dense breasts, non-calcified breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct ultrasonography to the screening regimen for breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (via OvidSP) and EMBASE up until February 2012.To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute's clinical trial database until June 2012. In addition, we conducted grey literature searches using the following sources: OpenGrey; National Institute of Health RePORTER; Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRPROJ); Hayes, Inc. Health Technology Assessment; The New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Index and Conference Papers Index.
  
  
  METHODS
  For efficacy, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with either individual or cluster randomisation, and prospective, controlled non-randomised studies with a low risk of bias and a sample size of at least 500 participants.In addition to studies eligible for efficacy, we considered any controlled, non-randomised study with a low risk of bias and a study size of at least 500 participants for the assessment of harms.Our population of interest were women between the ages of 40 and 75 years who were at average risk for breast cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. None of the studies met our inclusion criteria.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Our review did not detect any controlled studies on the use of adjunct ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for breast cancer. One ongoing randomised controlled trial was identified (J-START, Japan).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available justifying the routine use of ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for breast cancer.
authors: RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. gerald.gartlehner@donau-uni.ac.at.
authors: Gerald
authors: G
authors: Gartlehner
authors: Kylie
authors: K
authors: Thaler
authors: Andrea
authors: A
authors: Chapman
authors: Angela
authors: A
authors: Kaminski-Hartenthaler
authors: Dominik
authors: D
authors: Berzaczy
authors: Megan G
authors: MG
authors: Van Noord
authors: Thomas H
authors: TH
authors: Helbich
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000379:methods*; D016217:Ultrasonography, Mammary / Q000379:methods*
references: Rofo. 1998 Sep;169(3):245-52
references: 9779063
references: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):716-26, W-236
references: 19920272
references: J Ultrasound. 2007 Sep;10(3):143-51
references: 23396266
references: Eur J Cancer. 2008 Mar;44(4):539-44
references: 18267357
references: Clin Radiol. 1999 Oct;54(10):676-82
references: 10541394
references: Eur Radiol. 2008 Oct;18(10):2076-84
references: 18431574
references: Breast Cancer. 2008;15(2):165-8
references: 18224382
references: J Radiol. 2008 Sep;89(9 Pt 2):1180-6
references: 18772802
references: Br J Cancer. 1997;76(3):377-81
references: 9252206
references: Ultraschall Med. 1994 Feb;15(1):20-3
references: 8165458
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Jul;181(1):177-82
references: 12818853
references: World J Surg. 2008 Dec;32(12):2593-8
references: 17960454
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Oct;173(4):921-7
references: 10511149
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Aug 3;97(15):1118-24
references: 16077069
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995 Feb;48(2):193-9
references: 7789593
references: Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22
references: 18024988
references: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar;135(3):339-54
references: 18661152
references: Radiol Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;105(1-2):17-26
references: 12700541
references: Anticancer Res. 2006 Sep-Oct;26(5B):3943-55
references: 17094426
references: Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007 Sep;37(9):715-20
references: 17766996
references: BMC Cancer. 2009 Sep 20;9:335
references: 19765317
references: JAMA. 2008 May 14;299(18):2151-63
references: 18477782
references: Radiology. 1999 Nov;213(2):413-22
references: 10551221
references: Ultraschall Med. 2010 Jun;31(3):289-95
references: 20408119
references: Eur Radiol. 2011 Apr;21(4):667-75
references: 20853108
references: Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2013 Jun;11(2):87-93
references: 23750571
references: Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb;41(2):275-7
references: 21131295
references: Radiology. 2001 Dec;221(3):641-9
references: 11719658
references: Eur J Radiol. 1998 Feb;26(3):254-6
references: 9587751
references: JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1245-56
references: 15755947
references: Acta Radiol. 2010 Nov;51(9):969-76
references: 20942730
references: Cancer. 2002 Aug 15;95(4):713-23
references: 12209713
references: Bol Oficina Sanit Panam. 1968 Oct;65(4):281-393
references: 4234760
references: Eur Radiol. 2010 Mar;20(3):734-42
references: 19727744
references: Radiology. 2000 Dec;217(3):849-54
references: 11110953
references: N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):227-36
references: 17229950
references: Int J Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;63(11):1589-94
references: 19686337
references: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):727-37, W237-42
references: 19920273
references: Radiology. 1997 Dec;205(3):823-30
references: 9393543
references: Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):168-75
references: 12558355
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19;(1):CD001877
references: 21249649
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Jun;180(6):1675-9
references: 12760942
references: Radiol Med. 2006 Apr;111(3):440-8
references: 16683089
references: Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(3):443-8
references: 21552670
references: Eur J Cancer. 2011 May;47(7):1021-6
references: 21211962
references: Radiology. 1999 Dec;213(3):889-94
references: 10580971
references: Arch Intern Med. 2003 May 26;163(10):1194-9
references: 12767956
references: Eur Radiol. 2010 Nov;20(11):2557-64
references: 20632009
references: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 Apr;28(4):415-20
references: 12049952
references: Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2000 Aug;21(4):325-36
references: 11014255
references: Breast Cancer. 2009;16(1):18-22
references: 19009372
references: Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165-75
references: 12355001
references: Radiology. 1998 Apr;207(1):191-9
references: 9530316
references: Cancer. 2011 Feb 15;117(4):714-22
references: 20882563
references: Am J Surg. 2004 Oct;188(4):381-5
references: 15474430
references: Cancer. 2003 Nov 15;98(10):2133-43
references: 14601082
references: Tumori. 2007 Nov-Dec;93(6):562-6
references: 18338490
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;116(6):1410-1421
references: 21099612