Female Breast Cancer Screening

Variant: 1 Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
US breast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI breast without and with IV contrast abbreviated	May Be Appropriate	O
Mammography with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast abbreviated	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
US breast	May Be Appropriate	O
Mammography with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI breast without and with IV contrast abbreviated	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast abbreviated	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI breast without and with IV contrast abbreviated	Usually Appropriate	O
US breast	May Be Appropriate	O
Mammography with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast abbreviated	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI breast without and with IV contrast abbreviated	Usually Appropriate	O
US breast	May Be Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography screening	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast abbreviated	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Eren D. Yeh, MD^a; Ann Brown, MD^b; Phoebe E. Freer, MD^c; Manisha Bahl, MD^d; Debbie L. Bennett, MD^e; Lalitha Darbha, MD^f; Elizabeth H. Dibble, MD^g; Heather I. Greenwood, MD^h; Faihza M. Hill, MD, MS, MPHⁱ; Lillian K. Ivansco, MD, MPH^j; Mallory E. Kremer, MD^k; Christina A. Minami, MD, MS^l; Lisa A. Mullen, MD^m; Colleen H. Neal, MDⁿ; Mary S. Newell, MD^o; Archana Radhakrishnan, MD^p; Gaiane M. Rauch, MD, PhD^q; Beatriu Reig, MD, MPH^r; Elizabeth Shaughnessy, MD, PhD^s; William Small Jr., MD^t; Alana A. Lewin, MD^u.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
B. Mammography screening

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
C. Mammography with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
D. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
E. MRI breast without and with IV contrast abbreviated

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
F. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
G. MRI breast without IV contrast abbreviated

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
H. Sestamibi MBI

Variant 1: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Average risk.
I. US Breast

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
B. Mammography screening

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
C. Mammography with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
D. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
E. MRI breast without and with IV contrast abbreviated

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
F. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
G. MRI breast without IV contrast abbreviated

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
H. Sestamibi MBI

Variant 2: Adult female. Breast cancer screening. Intermediate risk.
I. US breast

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
B. Mammography screening

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
C. Mammography with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
D. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
E. MRI breast without and with IV contrast abbreviated

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
F. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
G. MRI breast without IV contrast abbreviated

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
H. Sestamibi MBI

Variant 3: Adult female 30 years of age or older. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
I. US breast

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
B. Mammography screening

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
C. Mammography with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
D. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
E. MRI breast without and with IV contrast abbreviated

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
F. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
G. MRI breast without IV contrast abbreviated

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
H. Sestamibi MBI

Variant 4: Adult female younger than 30 years of age. Breast cancer screening. High risk.
I. US breast

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011;260:658-63.
2.	Plecha D, Salem N, Kremer M, et al. Neglecting to screen women between 40 and 49 years old with mammography: what is the impact on treatment morbidity and potential risk reduction?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(2):282-8, 2014 Feb.
3.	Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Lee CS, Destounis SV. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2023 Sep;20(9):S1546-1440(23)00334-4.
4.	Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75-89.
5.	Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 314(15):1599-614, 2015 Oct 20.
6.	NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Version 1.2022. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf.
7.	Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 164(4):279-96, 2016 Feb 16.
8.	Age to Initiate Routine Breast Cancer Screening: ACOG Clinical Practice Update. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 145(1):e40-e44, 2025 Jan 01.Obstet Gynecol. 145(1):e40-e44, 2025 Jan 01.
9.	Nicholson WK, Silverstein M, Wong JB, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 331(22):1918-1930, 2024 06 11.JAMA. 331(22):1918-1930, 2024 06 11.
10.	Trentham-Dietz A, Chapman CH, Jayasekera J, et al. Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 331(22):1947-1960, 2024 06 11.JAMA. 331(22):1947-1960, 2024 06 11.
11.	Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, et al. Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 18(9):1280-1288, 2021 09.
12.	Brown A, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Transgender Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18:S502-S15.
13.	Weinstein SP, Slanetz PJ, Lewin AA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Based on Breast Density. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18:S456-S73.
14.	Heller SL, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S403-S14.
15.	Mehta TS, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Breast Surgery. J Am Coll Radiol 2022;19:S341-S56.
16.	diFlorio-Alexander RM, Slanetz PJ, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Imaging of Pregnant and Lactating Women. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Nov;15(11S):S1546-1440(18)31155-4.
17.	Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 311(24):2499-507, 2014 Jun 25.
18.	Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 203(3):687-93, 2014 Sep.
19.	Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269(3):694-700.
20.	Hofvind S, Holen AS, Aase HS, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncology. 20(6):795-805, 2019 06.
21.	Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis or Mammography: A Meta-analysis of Cancer Detection and Recall. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 110(9):942-949, 2018 09 01.
22.	McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 106(11), 2014 Nov.
23.	Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P, et al. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial. Radiology. 288(2):375-385, 2018 08.
24.	Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47-56.
25.	Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT, et al. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology. 291(1):23-30, 2019 04.Radiology. 291(1):23-30, 2019 04.
26.	Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England). 19(4):i-xxv, 1-136, 2015 Jan.
27.	Kim WH, Chang JM, Lee J, et al. Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis and breast ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a prospective comparison study. Breast Cancer Research & Treatment. 162(1):85-94, 2017 02.
28.	Lowry KP, Coley RY, Miglioretti DL, et al. Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density. JAMA Network Open. 3(7):e2011792, 2020 07 01.
29.	Buchberger W, Geiger-Gritsch S, Knapp R, Gautsch K, Oberaigner W. Combined screening with mammography and ultrasound in a population-based screening program. European Journal of Radiology. 101:24-29, 2018 Apr.
30.	McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1159-69.
31.	Sickles EA. The use of breast imaging to screen women at high risk for cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48:859-78.
32.	Yun SJ, Ryu CW, Rhee SJ, Ryu JK, Oh JY. Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis. [Review]. Breast Cancer Research & Treatment. 164(3):557-569, 2017 Aug.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 164(3):557-569, 2017 Aug.
33.	Houssami N, Zackrisson S, Blazek K, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating breast cancer detection and interval cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography population screening. [Review]. European Journal of Cancer. 148:14-23, 2021 05.
34.	Hendrick RE, Helvie MA, Hardesty LA. Implications of CISNET modeling on number needed to screen and mortality reduction with digital mammography in women 40-49 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(6):1379-81, 2014 Dec.
35.	Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 196(2):W112-6, 2011 Feb.
36.	Duffy S, Vulkan D, Cuckle H, et al. Annual mammographic screening to reduce breast cancer mortality in women from age 40 years: long-term follow-up of the UK Age RCT. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England). 24(55):1-24, 2020 10.
37.	Duffy SW, Tabar L, Yen AM, et al. Beneficial Effect of Consecutive Screening Mammography Examinations on Mortality from Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study. Radiology. 299(3):541-547, 2021 06.
38.	Tabar L, Yen AM, Wu WY, et al. Insights from the breast cancer screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs. Breast Journal. 21(1):13-20, 2015 Jan-Feb.
39.	Hendrick RE. Obligate Overdiagnosis Due to Mammographic Screening: A Direct Estimate for U.S. Women. Radiology. 287(2):391-397, 2018 May.
40.	van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, Hofvind S, de Koning HJ. Breast cancer incidence trends in Norway and estimates of overdiagnosis. Journal of Medical Screening. 24(2):83-91, 2017 06.
41.	Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Hendrick RE, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Women: Recommendations From the ACR Commission on Breast Imaging. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 14(9):1137-1143, 2017 Sep.
42.	Ray KM, Price ER, Joe BN. Evidence to Support Screening Women in Their 40s. [Review]. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 55(3):429-439, 2017 May.
43.	Wang L, Strigel RM. Supplemental Screening for Patients at Intermediate and High Risk for Breast Cancer. [Review]. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 59(1):67-83, 2021 Jan.
44.	Price ER, Keedy AW, Gidwaney R, Sickles EA, Joe BN. The Potential Impact of Risk-Based Screening Mammography in Women 40-49 Years Old. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 205(6):1360-4, 2015 Dec.
45.	Kuhl CK, Strobel K, Bieling H, Leutner C, Schild HH, Schrading S. Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer. Radiology. 283(2):361-370, 2017 May.
46.	Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 28;381(22):2091-2102.
47.	Mann RM, Athanasiou A, Baltzer PAT, et al. Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Eur Radiol 2022;32:4036-45.
48.	Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM, et al. Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening. JAMA. 323(8):746-756, 2020 02 25.
49.	Shermis RB, Wilson KD, Doyle MT, et al. Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening With Molecular Breast Imaging for Women With Dense Breast Tissue. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 207(2):450-7, 2016 Aug.
50.	Rhodes DJ. Supplemental screening in the dense breast: does molecular breast imaging have a role?. Menopause. 27(1):110-112, 2020 01.
51.	Zhang Z, Wang W, Wang X, et al. Breast-specific gamma imaging or ultrasonography as adjunct imaging diagnostics in women with mammographically dense breasts. European Radiology. 30(11):6062-6071, 2020 Nov.
52.	Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012;265:59-69.
53.	Tagliafico AS, Mariscotti G, Valdora F, et al. A prospective comparative trial of adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts (ASTOUND-2). European Journal of Cancer. 104:39-46, 2018 11.
54.	Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K. Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: Report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. European Journal of Radiology. 85(9):1554-63, 2016 Sep.
55.	Wu T, Warren LJ. The Added Value of Supplemental Breast Ultrasound Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: A Single Center Canadian Experience. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. 73(1):101-106, 2022 Feb.
56.	Yi A, Jang MJ, Yim D, Kwon BR, Shin SU, Chang JM. Addition of Screening Breast US to Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Average Risk. Radiology. 298(3):568-575, 2021 03.Radiology. 298(3):568-575, 2021 03.
57.	Rebolj M, Assi V, Brentnall A, Parmar D, Duffy SW. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Cancer. 118(12):1559-1570, 2018 06.
58.	Harada-Shoji N, Suzuki A, Ishida T, et al. Evaluation of Adjunctive Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women Aged 40-49 Years With Varying Breast Density Undergoing Screening Mammography: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open. 4(8):e2121505, 2021 08 02.
59.	Chang JM, Koo HR, Moon WK. Radiologist-performed hand-held ultrasound screening at average risk of breast cancer: results from a single health screening center. Acta Radiologica. 56(6):652-8, 2015 Jun.
60.	Acciavatti RJ, Lee SH, Reig B, et al. Beyond Breast Density: Risk Measures for Breast Cancer in Multiple Imaging Modalities. Radiology 2023;306:e222575.
61.	Yala A, Mikhael PG, Strand F, et al. Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk. Sci Transl Med. 2021 Jan 27;13(578):eaba4373.
62.	Hogan MP, Amir T, Sevilimedu V, Sung J, Morris EA, Jochelson MS. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Screening for Intermediate-Risk Women With a History of Lobular Neoplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Jun;216(6):1486-1491.
63.	Kim G, Phillips J, Cole E, et al. Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography With Conventional Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 16(10):1456-1463, 2019 Oct.
64.	Sorin V, Yagil Y, Yosepovich A, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Women With Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk and Dense Breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):W267-W274.
65.	Sung JS, Lebron L, Keating D, et al. Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer. Radiology. 2019 Oct;293(1):81-88.
66.	Sorin V, Rahman N, Halabi N, Barash Y, Klang E, Sklair-Levy M. Evaluating ten years of breast cancer screening with contrast enhanced mammography in women with Intermediate-high risk. European Journal of Radiology. 181:111807, 2024 Dec.Eur J Radiol. 181:111807, 2024 Dec.
67.	Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 307(13):1394-404, 2012 Apr 04.
68.	Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, Arand B, Bieling H, König R, Tombach B, Leutner C, Rieber-Brambs A, Nordhoff D, Heindel W, Reiser M, Schild HH. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 20;28(9):1450-7.
69.	Raikhlin A, Curpen B, Warner E, Betel C, Wright B, Jong R. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography for breast cancer screening in high-risk patients: retrospective review. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 204(4):889-97, 2015 Apr.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 204(4):889-97, 2015 Apr.
70.	Weinstein SP, Localio AR, Conant EF, Rosen M, Thomas KM, Schnall MD. Multimodality screening of high-risk women: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20;27(36):6124-8.
71.	Sippo DA, Burk KS, Mercaldo SF, et al. Performance of Screening Breast MRI across Women with Different Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Indications. Radiology. 292(1):51-59, 2019 07.
72.	Cho N, Han W, Han BK, et al. Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography Plus Ultrasonography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women 50 Years or Younger at Diagnosis and Treated With Breast Conservation Therapy. JAMA Oncology. 3(11):1495-1502, 2017 Nov 01.JAMA Oncol. 3(11):1495-1502, 2017 Nov 01.
73.	Haas CB, Nekhlyudov L, Lee JM, et al. Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Research & Treatment. 181(2):255-268, 2020 Jun.
74.	Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT, et al. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncology. 20(8):1136-1147, 2019 08.Lancet Oncol. 20(8):1136-1147, 2019 08.
75.	Sung JS, Stamler S, Brooks J, et al. Breast Cancers Detected at Screening MR Imaging and Mammography in Patients at High Risk: Method of Detection Reflects Tumor Histopathologic Results. Radiology. 280(3):716-22, 2016 09.
76.	Chiarelli AM, Prummel MV, Muradali D, et al. Effectiveness of screening with annual magnetic resonance imaging and mammography: results of the initial screen from the ontario high risk breast screening program. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 32(21):2224-30, 2014 Jul 20.
77.	Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 01;32(22):2304-10.
78.	Kwon MR, Choi JS, Won H, et al. Breast Cancer Screening with Abbreviated Breast MRI: 3-year Outcome Analysis. Radiology. 299(1):73-83, 2021 04.
79.	Dialani V, Tseng I, Slanetz PJ, et al. Potential role of abbreviated MRI for breast cancer screening in an academic medical center. Breast Journal. 25(4):604-611, 2019 07.Breast J. 25(4):604-611, 2019 07.
80.	Mango VL, Morris EA, David Dershaw D, et al. Abbreviated protocol for breast MRI: are multiple sequences needed for cancer detection?. European Journal of Radiology. 84(1):65-70, 2015 Jan.
81.	Panigrahi B, Mullen L, Falomo E, Panigrahi B, Harvey S. An Abbreviated Protocol for High-risk Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Impact on Performance Metrics and BI-RADS Assessment. Academic Radiology. 24(9):1132-1138, 2017 09.
82.	Cortesi L, Canossi B, Battista R, et al. Breast ultrasonography (BU) in the screening protocol for women at hereditary-familial risk of breast cancer: has the time come to rethink the role of BU according to different risk categories?. International Journal of Cancer. 144(5):1001-1009, 2019 03 01.
83.	Lowry KP, Geuzinge HA, Stout NK, et al. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for Women With ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 Pathogenic Variants: A Comparative Modeling Analysis. JAMA Oncology. 8(4):587-596, 2022 04 01.
84.	Kikuchi M, Gomi N, Ueki A, Osako T, Terauchi T. Effectiveness and tasks of breast MRI surveillance for high-risk women with cancer susceptibility genes other than BRCA1/2: a single institution study. Breast Cancer. 30(4):577-583, 2023 Jul.Breast Cancer. 30(4):577-583, 2023 Jul.
85.	Wang X, Chang MD, Lee MC, Niell BL. The Breast Cancer Screening and Timing of Breast MRI-Experience in a Genetic High-Risk Screening Clinic in a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Current Oncology. 29(3):2119-2131, 2022 03 19.Curr. oncol.. 29(3):2119-2131, 2022 03 19.
86.	Hermann N, Klil-Drori A, Angarita FA, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer: one program fits all? : Subgroup analysis of a large population high risk breast screening program. Breast Cancer Research & Treatment. 184(3):763-770, 2020 Dec.
87.	Roberts E, Howell S, Evans DG. Polygenic risk scores and breast cancer risk prediction. Breast 2023;67:71-77.
88.	Phi XA, Saadatmand S, De Bock GH, et al. Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2016;114:631-7.
89.	Berrington de Gonzalez A, Berg CD, Visvanathan K, Robson M. Estimated risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening for young BRCA mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:205-9.
90.	Chiarelli AM, Blackmore KM, Muradali D, et al. Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 112(2):136-144, 2020 02 01.
91.	Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, et al. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:5265-73.
92.	Narayan AK, Visvanathan K, Harvey SC. Comparative effectiveness of breast MRI and mammography in screening young women with elevated risk of developing breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Research & Treatment. 158(3):583-9, 2016 08.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 158(3):583-9, 2016 08.
93.	Gao Y, Perez CA, Chhor C, Heller SL. Breast Cancer Screening in Survivors of Childhood Cancer. Radiographics. 43(4):e220155, 2023 04.Radiographics. 43(4):e220155, 2023 04.
94.	Bevers TB, Niell BL, Baker JL, et al. NCCN Guidelines R Insights: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 1.2023. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 21(9):900-909, 2023 09.J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw.. 21(9):900-909, 2023 09.
95.	Yeh JM, Lowry KP, Schechter CB, et al. Breast Cancer Screening Among Childhood Cancer Survivors Treated Without Chest Radiation: Clinical Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 114(2):235-244, 2022 02 07.J Natl Cancer Inst. 114(2):235-244, 2022 02 07.
96.	Phi XA, Houssami N, Hooning MJ, et al. Accuracy of screening women at familial risk of breast cancer without a known gene mutation: Individual patient data meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur J Cancer. 85:31-38, 2017 11.
97.	Patel BK, Carnahan MB, Northfelt D, et al. Prospective Study of Supplemental Screening With Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Women With Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer: Results of the Prevalence Round. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 42(32):3826-3836, 2024 Nov 10.J Clin Oncol. 42(32):3826-3836, 2024 Nov 10.
98.	Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8469-8476.
99.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
100.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.