Back

Improving Breast Cancer Detection in Higher Risk Women: A Multi-modality Imaging Evaluation in a Private Screening Clinic

Reddy, S.; Mercy Radiology and Breast Clinical Pilot Team, ; Knowlton, N.; Lasham, A.

2025-09-12 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2025.09.08.25334122 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionWhile 2D mammography is the standard for breast cancer screening, its sensitivity is reduced in dense breasts, impacting early detection and extent assessment. This study, for the first time in New Zealand, evaluated the utility of supplementary multi-modality imaging (tomosynthesis, ultrasound, and MRI) in a risk-stratified population. MethodsA retrospective case study (May 2022 - September 2023, New Zealand private clinic) analysed patients by Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) v8 lifetime risk and by Volpara density categories. All patients in the screening pathway (n = 2171) underwent 2D mammography and tomosynthesis. Those patients with high breast density received supplementary ultrasound, and those with TC8 risk scores of [≥] 30% were offered abbreviated MRI. Symptomatic patients (n = 230) underwent standard diagnostic workup. Detection rates and extent of disease using multimodality imaging were compared. ResultsOf the 2401 patients, 205 were high-risk criteria ([≥]30%) and 19 breast cancers (16 invasive, 3 DCIS only) were diagnosed. Tomosynthesis identified 38% (6/16) more invasive cancers than 2D mammography alone. Ultrasound and MRI detected an additional 27% (4/16) invasive cancers occult on other modalities, predominantly in those women with density D breasts. Ultrasound and particularly MRI demonstrated superior accuracy in assessing disease extent, including identifying multifocal and multicentric disease that was not detected by 2D or Tomosynthesis. ConclusionSupplementary screening modalities, particularly MRI, significantly improve breast cancer detection and assessment of disease extent in high-risk women. These findings support a personalized screening approach integrating risk assessment and breast density to guide imaging modality selection.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.9%
2
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.5%
4
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.6%
5
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
7
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.4%
8
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
9
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
10
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.9%
11
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.8%
12
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
13
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.8%
14
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
15
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
16
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.5%
17
Nutrients
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
18
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
NeuroImage: Clinical
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
22
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
23
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
24
Biomedical Optics Express
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Frontiers in Endocrinology
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
28
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
29
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%