Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines: Why Risk Matters More Than Age

Every year, roughly 42,000 women in the United States die from breast cancer. That number has been cited so many times it has lost some of its capacity to shock — but it shouldn’t, because it contains a problem that is only partly biological. Some portion of those deaths were always going to happen. Aggressive tumors, fast-dividing and metabolically relentless, can outpace even the most vigilant surveillance. But a significant share of those 42,000 represent something different: a failure of execution. Women who were never screened, or screened too infrequently, or screened with the wrong tool for their particular risk. Women who fell through the gap between what medicine knows how to do and what it actually does.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American women, behind only lung cancer. It is also one of the most screened-for cancers in the world, with decades of randomized trial data, sophisticated imaging technology, and detailed clinical guidelines behind it. The paradox — effective tools, persistent mortality — is what makes this disease worth examining carefully. Because the problem, in large part, is not scientific. It is organizational, communicative, and deeply personal.

What Screening Actually Does

The case for mammography rests on a concept called stage shift. Cancers found through screening tend to be smaller, more localized, and more treatable than cancers found because a woman noticed a lump or a symptom. That difference in timing translates directly into survival. When breast cancer is caught at stage I, ten-year survival exceeds 96%. By stage IV, five-year survival drops to roughly 30% (SEER Program, National Cancer Institute, 2026).

Women who screen regularly are approximately 40% less likely to die from breast cancer than those who don’t — a figure that holds across multiple large studies and has been replicated consistently enough that it is no longer seriously contested (USPSTF, 2024). The debate in breast cancer screening is not whether to screen. It is when to start, how often, and with what.

That debate has been muddied by the fact that major medical organizations disagree with each other, sometimes substantially. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammography every other year for average-risk women between 40 and 74. The American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend annual mammography starting at 40, with earlier and more intensive screening for women at elevated risk. The USPSTF’s guidelines carry particular weight because they inform insurance coverage decisions — which means their conservatism has real downstream consequences for what women can access and afford.

The confusion this creates is not trivial. A recent survey found that roughly half of women are uncertain about when to begin mammography. That uncertainty, compounded by guidelines that shift over time and organizations that contradict each other, has a measurable effect: about a third of women over 40 have not had a mammogram in the past two years. Even among women aged 50 to 74 — the group where the evidence is most universally agreed upon — approximately 20% are not current.

Under-screening has two layers. The first is straightforward: many women are not getting routine mammography at all, or not on any consistent schedule. The second is subtler and in some ways more troubling. Some women are being screened, but not with the right strategy for who they are. According to criteria established by major screening guidelines, at least 9% of women meet the threshold for breast MRI as part of their screening protocol. The actual utilization rate is 0.4% (Melnikow et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 2016). MRI for high-risk women is not experimental or controversial. It is guideline-supported, evidence-backed, and dramatically underused. The gap between those two numbers is not a scientific problem. It is a system problem — and, for individual women, a solvable one.

Risk Is Not One Thing

Most people, when they think about breast cancer risk, think about BRCA. The BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are the most recognized inherited risk factors for the disease, and for good reason: they can increase lifetime breast cancer risk to 70% or higher and shift that risk substantially earlier in life (Kuchenbaecker et al., JAMA, 2017). But BRCA mutations are rarer than the cultural prominence of genetic testing might suggest. In the general population, roughly 1 in 400 people carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, with higher prevalence in people of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. The majority of women who develop breast cancer do not carry one of these mutations.

What they often do carry is a constellation of smaller factors that, taken together, push their risk meaningfully above average. This is the more common and more easily overlooked pattern — not a single dramatic red flag, but an accumulation of inputs that no one has ever added up.

Age is the most fundamental. The median age at breast cancer diagnosis is around 62, and the vast majority of cases occur after 40. Risk accumulates continuously over a lifetime; the familiar “1 in 8” statistic reflects cumulative risk through age 90, while cumulative risk through age 40 is less than 1% (NCI SEER). Family history matters enormously, but not only as a proxy for known mutations. Having multiple first- or second-degree relatives with breast cancer reflects the cumulative effect of lower-penetrance genetic variants, shared environmental exposures, and inherited factors that no single genetic test currently captures. Crucially, the absence of family history does not guarantee average risk — some families are small, some relatives died young of other causes, and some mutations that increase breast cancer risk manifest in relatives as prostate or pancreatic cancer rather than as an obvious pattern of breast disease.

Prior chest radiation — particularly high-dose treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma in adolescence or early adulthood, when breast tissue is still developing — carries significant risk. Reproductive and hormonal factors contribute incrementally: earlier onset of menstruation, later menopause, nulliparity, first pregnancy after 40, and not breastfeeding each add modestly to overall risk, and their effects compound when several are present together.

Then there is breast density, which is unusual among risk factors because it operates in two distinct ways simultaneously. Dense breast tissue is associated with a somewhat higher baseline risk of developing cancer. But it also makes mammograms harder to read — both dense tissue and tumors appear white on the image, so one can obscure the other. Density is therefore not just a biological variable; it is a technical limitation of the primary screening tool. About half of women of screening age have dense breast tissue, and density is higher in younger women. The FDA now requires imaging centers to notify women of their density classification, reported using the BI-RADS system: categories A and B are non-dense, C and D are dense. Density is roughly 60–70% heritable, which means a woman whose mother or grandmother had dense breasts has meaningful prior probability of having them herself — before she has ever had an imaging study.

Modifiable factors — alcohol use, obesity, poor metabolic health, physical inactivity — contribute to risk as well, though not typically enough on their own to change a screening protocol. They matter most as factors that can actually be addressed, unlike age or genetics.

Because no one can accurately estimate the sum of all these inputs in their head, formal risk calculators exist for exactly this purpose. The Tyrer-Cuzick model, which integrates family history, personal risk factors, and breast density to estimate 10-year and lifetime risk, is among the most validated tools available. Most screening guidelines classify a lifetime risk above 20% as high risk, though ancestry and other factors can shift that threshold. The practical implication is that a formal risk assessment — using a validated calculator, ideally with a physician — should happen by the mid-20s. Not because anyone needs imaging at 25, but because by then a woman should know whether she is truly average risk or not, while there is still time to act on the answer.

The Mammogram’s Blind Spot

Mammography has been the foundation of breast cancer screening for decades, and it remains the appropriate starting point for virtually all women. It uses low-dose X-rays to detect abnormalities in breast tissue, and its particular strength is calcification detection — including the fine, clustered calcifications associated with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), sometimes called stage zero breast cancer. DCIS represents abnormal cells still confined to the milk ducts, not yet invading surrounding tissue. If left untreated, somewhere between 25% and 60% of DCIS cases may eventually progress to invasive cancer — a wide range that reflects genuine scientific uncertainty about the natural history of the disease, and precisely why early detection has value (Wang et al., Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 2024).

Not all mammograms are equivalent. Standard two-dimensional digital mammography — the technology that underpins most of the historical research — was a significant advance over film-based mammography when it was introduced in 2000. But in 2011, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), commonly called 3D mammography, became available. DBT acquires multiple images from different angles and reconstructs a layered view of the breast, rather than compressing it into a single flat image. The result is better cancer detection and lower recall rates, particularly in women with dense breasts (Conant et al., Radiology, 2023; Kniss et al., Academic Radiology, 2026). Not every imaging center offers DBT, and it sometimes carries an additional cost, but it is the version of mammography that current evidence supports as the stronger choice.

The limitation of mammography — even DBT — is sensitivity, particularly in dense breast tissue. A 2025 UK cohort study found that breast density substantially reduced the sensitivity of digital screening mammography, with the effect most pronounced in women with the densest tissue categories (Payne et al., European Radiology, 2025). For women with dense breasts, a negative mammogram provides less reassurance than it does for women with fatty breast tissue. This is not a reason to avoid mammography; it is a reason to understand what mammography can and cannot see, and to consider what else might be needed.

The Case for MRI

For women at elevated risk — whether from a known genetic mutation, a strong family history, prior chest radiation, or a combination of factors that pushes lifetime risk above 20% — mammography alone is often insufficient. This is where MRI enters the picture, not as a replacement for mammography but as a supplement to it.

Breast MRI uses magnetic fields and intravenous gadolinium-based contrast to detect abnormal blood flow and tissue behavior that X-ray imaging cannot capture. It is the most sensitive breast imaging modality available, particularly for small invasive tumors and atypical cancers. Its weakness is specificity: MRI generates more false positives than mammography, and its higher callback burden is a real cost. But for women whose baseline risk justifies accepting that trade-off, MRI’s sensitivity advantage is substantial.

The evidence for MRI in high-risk women is not ambiguous. The DENSE trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, enrolled women with extremely dense breast tissue who had received a negative screening mammogram. Adding MRI to their screening protocol cut the rate of interval cancers — cancers diagnosed between scheduled screens, typically because they grew fast enough to become symptomatic — from 5 per 1,000 women to 2.5 per 1,000 (Bakker et al., NEJM, 2019). Halving the interval cancer rate is not a marginal improvement. Interval cancers are disproportionately aggressive; catching them earlier changes outcomes.

The standard full breast MRI protocol takes 30 to 60 minutes and requires IV contrast administration. An abbreviated protocol, which captures the most diagnostically critical sequences and takes 10 to 15 minutes, preserves nearly all of the sensitivity of the full exam while substantially reducing cost, time, and the barrier to access (Kwon et al., Radiology, 2021; Grimm et al., AJR, 2022). A 2025 multireader study confirmed that abbreviated MRI performs comparably to the full protocol for screening women with extremely dense breasts (van Grinsven et al., Radiology, 2025). The abbreviated protocol is almost certainly the most underutilized tool in breast cancer screening — faster, cheaper, and more scalable than the full exam, while still dramatically outperforming mammography alone in the populations that need it most.

When MRI is not feasible — due to cost, access, claustrophobia, or contraindication — contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is the next best option. CEM, introduced in 2011, pairs standard mammography with an intravenous iodine-based contrast agent to provide functional information about blood flow, similar in principle to MRI but using X-ray technology. A 2023 comparative study found that abbreviated MRI and CEM performed comparably for cancer detection in screening populations, with CEM offering a more accessible alternative in settings where MRI capacity is limited (Lawson et al., Radiology, 2023). A prospective study of CEM in elevated-risk women published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2024 found cancer detection rates substantially higher than mammography alone (Patel et al., JCO, 2024). CEM is not yet widely available, but its accessibility relative to MRI makes it a meaningful option as it becomes more common.

Ultrasound: Useful, Variable, Dependent

Ultrasound occupies a different position in the screening hierarchy. It uses sound waves rather than radiation or magnetic fields, carries no ionizing radiation risk, and can add incremental cancer detection over mammography alone. But its value is more variable than any other modality, and that variability is almost entirely a function of two things: who performs the exam, and what baseline imaging it is being added to.

A landmark JAMA study found that adding physician-performed handheld ultrasound to standard 2D mammography increased cancer detection by 4.2 per 1,000 women screened in a high-risk population (Berg et al., JAMA, 2008). A subsequent study pairing technician-performed ultrasound with DBT — the more sensitive mammogram — found a detection boost of only 1.1 per 1,000 (Berg et al., Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2023). The gap between those two numbers is instructive. When the baseline imaging is stronger, and when the technician is less experienced, ultrasound adds less. Its benefit is real but conditional.

Ultrasound’s most reliable role is not as a primary screening tool but as a diagnostic complement — providing real-time visualization of something suspicious seen on another imaging study, or guiding a biopsy. For average-risk women, it is not a substitute for mammography. For high-risk women, it is not a substitute for MRI. Where it fits is in the space between those two categories, or as a practical option when more sensitive supplemental imaging is genuinely unavailable.

Annual or Biennial: What the Data Actually Show

The question of how often to screen has generated more controversy than almost any other aspect of breast cancer surveillance, and the controversy is largely a product of a category error — conflating population-level efficiency with individual-level benefit.

The USPSTF’s recommendation of biennial mammography for average-risk women traces back to a 2009 CISNET analysis. CISNET — the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, a consortium of independent modeling groups funded by the National Cancer Institute — found that biennial screening retained approximately 81% of the mortality benefit of annual screening while generating roughly half as many false positives. That analysis used data from film-based mammography, the technology that predated digital mammography and certainly predated DBT. The conclusion was not that biennial screening was optimal for any individual woman’s mortality risk, but that it offered the best trade-off between benefit and resource utilization at a population level. The distinction matters.

In 2024, CISNET published its most comprehensive analysis to date, incorporating multiple modeling strategies and both 2D digital mammography and DBT. A secondary analysis of those results compared annual and biennial screening directly on mortality outcomes. Annual screening of women aged 40 to 79 produced a 42% mortality reduction compared to no screening; biennial screening produced a 30% reduction. In absolute terms, annual screening yielded 230 life-years gained per 1,000 women, versus 165 for biennial (Monticciolo, Hendrick & Helvie, Radiology, 2024).

There is a secondary finding from that analysis that tends to get overlooked. The cumulative false positive burden is higher with annual screening, as would be expected from twice as many exams. But the rate of false positives and benign biopsies per individual exam is actually lower with annual screening than with biennial — likely because the radiologist has a more recent prior image to compare against, making it easier to distinguish a new finding from stable tissue. The false positive argument against annual screening is weaker than it appears when the denominator is the individual exam rather than the cumulative total.

Observational data reinforce the modeling. Among women aged 40 to 84 who developed breast cancer, those who had been screening annually had an 11% rate of interval cancers — cancers found between scheduled screens — compared to 38% for women screening biennially. Annual screeners were also more likely to have a stage I diagnosis at detection: 76% versus 56% (Moorman et al., AJR, 2021). Stage at diagnosis is not a surrogate endpoint. It is the variable most directly connected to whether a woman survives.

No randomized controlled trial has directly compared annual versus biennial screening with mortality as its primary endpoint — that trial has never been done, and for practical and ethical reasons, probably never will be. The evidence base is modeling and observational data. But the direction of that evidence is consistent, and the logic is straightforward: faster-growing cancers have less time to advance between screens when screens are more frequent. For a woman optimizing her own outcome rather than a health system’s budget, annual mammography is the better strategy.

Why Annual Beats Biennial for Anyone Optimizing Their Own Odds

The case for biennial screening is a population argument. It asks: given finite resources, competing healthcare priorities, and the aggregate anxiety generated by false positives across millions of women, what interval produces the best societal return? That is a legitimate question, and biennial screening is a defensible answer to it.

But it is the wrong question for an individual woman sitting in a doctor’s office trying to understand her options. Her question is different: what gives me the best chance of not dying from this disease? The CISNET data answer that question clearly, and the answer is annual screening.

For women who are also receiving supplemental MRI, the most common clinical approach is to alternate the two modalities every six months — mammography in one cycle, MRI six months later — rather than performing both simultaneously once a year. The logic is intuitive: alternating creates an effective six-month screening interval, giving fast-growing cancers less time to develop between detection opportunities. The evidence for this scheduling approach is thinner than the evidence for either modality individually; studies comparing staggered versus simultaneous scheduling are methodologically difficult to execute cleanly, and results have been mixed (Lo et al., Radiology, 2017). For high-risk women who are more likely to develop rapidly growing tumors, alternating makes biological sense. But the more important question is not whether the tests are staggered — it is whether both are being done consistently at all.

The Age Question, and Why Risk Factors Matter More Than the Cutoff

The age-40 starting point for routine mammography is well-supported by evidence and makes sense as a population default. But it is a default, not a rule, and for women with certain risk factors, it is the wrong starting point.

Only about 5% of breast cancer diagnoses occur in women under 40. The cumulative risk through age 40 is less than 1%. These figures come from cancer registries that capture all diagnosed cancers, including those found symptomatically and those caught in women who began screening early because of elevated risk — so the low incidence is not simply an artifact of not looking (NCI SEER). The age-incidence curve rises smoothly and continuously through the 30s and 40s, with no sharp spike at 40 that would suggest a hidden backlog of undetected disease.

But low average risk is not the same as low risk for every individual. A study of approximately 6 million mammograms from facilities across the United States found that among women aged 35 to 39 with at least one of three risk factors — personal history of breast cancer, first-degree family history, or dense breasts — the cancer detection rate was 2.1 per 1,000 women screened. For average-risk women in the same age group with none of those factors, the rate was 0.59 per 1,000. For average-risk women aged 40 to 44, the detection rate was 0.71 per 1,000 (Lee et al., Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2020). Women in their late 30s with risk factors were being diagnosed at roughly three times the rate of average-risk women in their early 40s. The risk factors, in other words, were doing more work than the age cutoff.

For women who are clearly high risk — known BRCA carriers, strong family history, prior chest radiation — the conversation about when to start screening is different entirely. These women should be in a more aggressive protocol beginning in their 20s or early 30s, typically with MRI as the primary tool rather than mammography.

Younger Women, Faster Tumors

Breast cancer in women under 40 does not behave the same way as breast cancer in older women. Younger women are substantially more likely to develop aggressive subtypes. About 20% of breast cancers in women under 40 are triple-negative — the most aggressive form, characterized by the absence of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 expression, which limits treatment options and accelerates growth. In women over 40, triple-negative cancers account for roughly 6 to 12% of cases. Triple-negative tumors can double in size in under four months (Dahan et al., Cancer Medicine, 2021). Annual screening may not be sufficient to intercept them. Slower-growing cancers — those with doubling times closer to a year, which screening is best designed to catch — make up only about a third of cases in women under 40, compared to well over half in older women.

For women carrying a BRCA1 mutation, this biology has direct implications for both timing and modality. BRCA1 risk is not distributed evenly across a lifetime. It is heavily concentrated in earlier decades, declining in relative terms with age. Prospective cohort data from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium found that BRCA1 carriers face a cumulative breast cancer risk of approximately 72% to age 80, with risk concentrated in the 30s and 40s (Kuchenbaecker et al., JAMA, 2017). The practical implication is that the cancers developing in younger, high-risk women tend to be fast-growing and harder to visualize on mammography — which is precisely why MRI, with its superior sensitivity for invasive tumors, is the more appropriate primary screening tool for this group.

There is one additional consideration worth raising for women who are not yet in any formal screening program: breast density cannot be definitively established without imaging. For a woman in her 30s who is otherwise average risk, a single baseline mammogram — not primarily to find cancer, but to establish whether she has dense breasts — is a reasonable step. Density is a risk factor that changes the screening calculus, and knowing it earlier means having more time to act on it.

When Screening Doesn’t Apply

Everything discussed so far concerns asymptomatic women — screening designed to find cancer before it announces itself. There is one type of breast cancer that operates outside those rules entirely.

Inflammatory breast cancer is rare, accounting for roughly 1 to 5% of all breast cancers, but it is aggressive and it does not present the way most people expect. There is typically no discrete lump. Instead, the breast may become rapidly swollen or heavy, the skin may redden or develop a rash, and the texture may thicken or dimple — changes that can be mistaken for infection or skin irritation. Because the presentation is atypical, diagnosis is frequently delayed. And critically, a normal screening mammogram does not rule out inflammatory breast cancer. These tumors may not be visible on mammography at all. A diagnostic workup — in person, with a physician — is necessary.

This is a reminder that screening tests are designed for women without symptoms. A recent normal mammogram does not mean that a new symptom can be safely ignored. A new lump, skin changes, nipple discharge, or pain that does not resolve warrants prompt evaluation, regardless of when the last screen was.

Men are not exempt. Breast cancer in men is rare — roughly 1 in 750 men will develop it over a lifetime, compared to 1 in 8 women — but it occurs. Because men are not routinely screened, symptoms are typically the only path to diagnosis. A new symptom in a man should be evaluated with the same urgency as it would be in a woman.

From Risk to Action

The gap between what breast cancer screening can accomplish and what it actually accomplishes is not primarily a scientific problem. The science is settled enough. The tools exist. The evidence for who should use them, when, and how often is stronger than the utilization numbers suggest it is.

What the gap reflects is a failure of translation — between population-level guidelines and individual-level decisions, between what insurance covers and what high-risk women actually need, between the existence of abbreviated MRI and the near-total absence of its use in the women who qualify for it.

Some of that failure is systemic. MRI access is genuinely limited in many parts of the country. Insurance coverage is often tied to USPSTF guidelines that do not fully address high-risk populations. Imaging quality varies across centers in ways that are not always visible to patients. A routine mammogram can be done adequately in many places, but advanced imaging — MRI, CEM, ultrasound in dense breast tissue — depends on volume, experience, and protocol execution in ways that make center selection meaningful. High-volume dedicated breast imaging centers tend to produce more consistent results. For women pursuing more advanced imaging, that distinction is not trivial.

But much of what determines whether a woman gets the right screening is within her control, if she knows what to ask. A formal risk assessment using a validated calculator like Tyrer-Cuzick, completed in the mid-20s, establishes a baseline. Knowing breast density — from prior imaging, or by planning to establish it at the start of screening — changes the conversation about what modality is appropriate. Choosing a screening strategy that matches both risk level and tolerance for false positives, and then executing it consistently over time, is what separates passive screening from the kind that actually changes outcomes.

The biology of some breast cancers will defeat even the best surveillance. But the biology of most breast cancers does not. The majority of the 42,000 deaths that occur each year are not inevitable. They are the product of a system that knows what to do and, too often, doesn’t do it.

Sources

1. National Cancer Institute SEER Program. Cancer Statistics: Top 10 Cancer Sites Responsible for Death, 2026. surveillance.cancer.gov
2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Breast Cancer Screening Recommendation Statement. April 30, 2025. uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org
3. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–2416. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7112
4. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, et al. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016;164(4):268–278. doi:10.7326/M15-1789
5. Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;381(22):2091–2102. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903986
6. Conant EF, Talley MM, Parghi CR, et al. Mammographic screening in routine practice: Multisite study of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography screenings. Radiology. 2023;307(3):e221571. doi:10.1148/radiol.221571
7. Kniss AS, Mercaldo S, Bahl M. Impact of breast density on screening performance metrics: An analysis of 301,400 screening digital breast tomosynthesis examinations. Academic Radiology. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2025.12.042
8. Payne NR, Hickman SE, Black R, Priest AN, Hudson S, Gilbert FJ. Breast density effect on the sensitivity of digital screening mammography in a UK cohort. European Radiology. 2025;35(1):177–187. doi:10.1007/s00330-024-10951-w
9. Wang J, Xu E, Xia X, et al. Progression from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive breast cancer: molecular features and clinical significance. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. 2024. doi:10.1038/s41392-024-01779-3
10. Kwon MR, Choi JS, Won H, et al. Breast cancer screening with abbreviated breast MRI: 3-year outcome analysis. Radiology. 2021;299(1):73–83. doi:10.1148/radiol.2021202927
11. Grimm LJ, Mango VL, Harvey JA, Plecha DM, Conant EF. Implementation of abbreviated breast MRI for screening: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2022;218(2):202–212. doi:10.2214/AJR.21.26349
12. van Grinsven S, et al. Multireader diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with extremely dense breasts. Radiology. 2025. doi:10.1148/radiol.240878
13. Lawson MB, Partridge SC, Hippe DS, et al. Comparative performance of contrast-enhanced mammography, abbreviated breast MRI, and standard breast MRI for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2023;308(2):e230576. doi:10.1148/radiol.230576
14. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2024;42(32):3826–3836. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.02819
15. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–2163. doi:10.1001/jama.299.18.2151
16. Berg WA, et al. Prospective multicenter diagnostic performance of technologist-performed screening breast ultrasound after tomosynthesis in women with dense breasts (DBTUST). Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2023. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01993
17. Monticciolo DL, Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. Outcomes of breast cancer screening strategies based on Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network estimates. Radiology. 2024. doi:10.1148/radiol.232499
18. Moorman SE, et al. Annual screening mammography associated with lower stage breast cancer compared with biennial screening. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2021. doi:10.2214/AJR.20.24798
19. Lee CI, Zhu W, Onega T, et al. Risk-based screening mammography for women aged <40: Outcomes from the National Mammography Database. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2019.09.052
20. Dahan M, Hequet D, Bonneau C, Paoletti X, Rouzier R. Has tumor doubling time in breast cancer changed over the past 80 years? A systematic review. Cancer Medicine. 2021;10(16):5557–5569. doi:10.1002/cam4.4076
21. Lo G, Scaranelo AM, Aboras H, et al. Evaluation of the utility of screening mammography for high-risk women undergoing screening breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2017;285(1):36–43. doi:10.1148/radiol.2017161103
22. Gilbert FJ, Payne NR, Allajbeu I, et al. Comparison of supplemental breast cancer imaging techniques — interim results from the BRAID randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2025;405(10493):1935–1944. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00582-3