6. Women with high breast density
In the context of an organised population-based screening programme, the ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group (GDG) suggests:
- implementing tailored screening with additional DBT for women with high mammographic breast density detected for the first time with digital mammography (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of the evidence)
- using DBT for women with high mammographic breast density detected in previous screening exams (conditional recommendation, low certainty of the evidence)
Screening with tomosynthesis vs. mammography
Issued on: May 2023
Healthcare question
Should digital breast tomosynthesis vs. digital mammography be used in organised screening programmes for early detection of breast cancer in asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density detected in a previous screening exam?
Recommendation
For asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density detected in a previous screening exam, the ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group (GDG) suggests using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) over digital mammography (DM) in the context of an organised population-based screening programme.
Recommendation strength
| Conditional recommendation |
| Low certainty of the evidence |
Justification
The GDG agreed that the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects favours the use of DBT. The overall certainty of the evidence is low because of the uncertainty in estimates for interval breast cancers and false positives, and the absence of data for the downstream impact on breast cancer mortality.
The evidence shows that when using DBT, there are likely greater number of breast cancers detected. In addition, there may be less overdiagnosis when using DBT since a higher proportion of invasive breast cancers are detected compared with non-invasive ductal carcinoma (DCIS) which are clinically less relevant cancers. Interval breast cancers (detected between regular screening visits) may also be reduced. These moderate benefits probably outweigh the higher number of false positives that may occur with DBT.
There are moderate costs associated with DBT over DM, which could increase health inequities if implemented, but there are fewer women with high breast density in the target population for screening. Implementation of DBT would be facilitated by increased availability of DBT machines, adequate human resources (radiologists and technical personnel), and financial resources.
Considerations for implementation and policy making
Potential challenges may exist:
- The need for an infrastructure to archive data on breast density from previous screening exams and to share mammograms across centres as well as alerting that a woman with high breast density during the screening is required.
- The use of DBT might increase the overall time for reading mammograms (either due to an increased time for reading a single mammogram or due to the necessity for the radiologist to rest between reading different mammograms).
- In some countries, difficulties in recruiting radiologists for screening programmes exist.
- Referring women to another centre equipped with DBT might be not acceptable in certain countries.
Use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms might help overcome some challenges (please refer to the specific ECIBC recommendations on the use of AI in screening).
A validated approach to assess breast density objectively will facilitate implementation.
Monitoring and evaluation
Quality assurance and improvement will be challenging given the need to divide women between the first or previous detection of high breast density.
Feasibility and acceptability could be assessed in the monitoring of programmes. Quality control procedures and quality standards should be further developed. Standards should be developed in particular for the image quality of synthesised 2D images from the tomosynthesis technology.
Research priorities
- Further research is needed to identify which high density group experiences the greatest net desirable consequences.
- There is a need for research examining the classification of mammographic breast density and standardisation of the classification systems used for breast density, including technology for the automation of the determination of breast density. Research should also aim at establishing the appropriate density threshold for changing imaging techniques.
- Further research is needed to build the evidence on benefits and harms of DBT vs DM through comparison of direct outcomes, including impacts of interval cancer incidence, stage of breast cancer at detection, and mortality reduction.
- There is also a need for research evidence on repeated DBT examinations since the current evidence is mainly restricted to a single surveillance episode.
- Further research should also assess the cost-effectiveness implications of tailored DBT screening for high mammographic breast density.
- Additional research should also assess the comparison between DBT and DM plus ultrasound for dense breast screening.
- Research is needed to define the quality parameters that need to be fulfilled for DBT-based breast cancer screening programmes to be implemented.
Supporting material
- Organised vs. non-organised screening
- Double vs. single reading in mammograpy screening
- Communication skills training
- Communication with care providers
- Optimal number of mammography readings
- Specialised training
- Risk stratification
- Women aged 40-44: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 45-49: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 45-49: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 45-49: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 45-49: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 50-69: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 70-74: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Single reading with AI support
- Double reading with AI support
- Screening with tomosynthesis vs. mammography
- Screening with tomosynthesis plus mammography vs. mammography alone
- Tailored screening with tomosynthesis
- Screening with tomosynthesis vs. mammography
- Tailored screening with MRI
- Tailored screening with ABUS
- Tailored screening with HHUS
- Informing about benefits and harms: use of decision aids
- Informing about benefits and harms: Numbers in addition to plain language
- Informing about benefits and harms: Infographics in addition to plain language
- Informing about benefits and harms: Story telling in addition to plain language
- Inviting women to screening: letter vs. no invitation
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Targeted vs. general communication strategy
- Inviting women with an intellectual disability to screening
- Inviting non-native speakers to screening
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Tailored vs. targeted communication strategy
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Tailored vs. general communication strategy
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter vs. no invitation
- Inviting women to screening: letter with fixed appointment vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter with fixed appointment vs. lett
- Inviting women to screening: letter with GP signature vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter with GP signature vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by phone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by phone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by phone call vs. no invitation
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by written reminder vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by written reminder vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by face to face intervention vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by face to face intervention vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: e-mail vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: automated telephone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by automated telephone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by SMS notification vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by personalised phone call vs. automated phone call
- Negative result: letter vs. nothing
- Further assessment: letter followed by a phone call
- Further assessment: timing of results
- Negative result: phone call vs. letter
- Negative result: face to face interview vs. letter
- Negative result: timing of results
- Tomosynthesis vs. assessment mammography
- Obtaining a sample from a suspicious breast lesion
- Type of guidance for needle core biopsy
- Stage 1: conventional exams
- Stage 1: PET-CT exams
- Stage 2: conventional exams
- Stage 2: PET-CT exams
- Stage 3: conventional exams
- Stage 3: PET-CT exams
- Stage 3: conventional exams plus PET-CT
- Use of clip-marking
- Additional magnetic resonance imaging
- Contrast-enhanced mammography
- Threshold of oestrogen for endocrine therapy
- Threshold of progesterone for endocrine therapy
- Multigene testing: 70 gene signature at low clinical risk
- Multigene testing: 70 gene signature at high clinical risk
- Multigene testing: 21 gene recurrence score
- Organising screening programmes
- Risk stratification
- Women 40-44
- Women 45-49
- Women 50-69
- Women 70-74
- Women with high breast density
- General Population
- Vulnerable Population
- Informing women about their results
- Women recalled due to suspicious lesions
- Obtaining a sample from a suspicious lesion
- Type of guidance for needle core biopsy
- Stage 1
- Stage 2
- Stage 3
- Planning surgical treatment
- Hormone receptor to guide use of endocrine therapy
- Multigene testing to guide use of chemotherapy