6. Women with high breast density
In the context of an organised population-based screening programme, for asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density, the ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group (GDG) suggests:
- not implementing tailored screening with automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of the evidence)
- not implementing tailored screening with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) (conditional recommendation, low certainty of the evidence)
Tailored screening with ABUS
Issued on: July 2024
Healthcare question
Should tailored screening with automated breast ultrasound, in addition to mammography (either digital breast tomosynthesis or digital mammography), vs. mammography alone be used in organised population-based screening programmes for early detection of breast cancer in asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density?
Recommendation
For asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density and negative mammography (either digital breast tomosynthesis or digital mammography), the ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group (GDG) suggests not implementing tailored screening with additional automated breast ultrasound (ABUS), in the context of an organised population-based screening programme.
Recommendation strength
| Conditional recommendation |
| Very low certainty of the evidence |
Justification
The GDG agreed that the balance of desirable and undesirable effects favours not implementing automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for screening women with high mammographic breast density with a negative mammography (either DBT or DM) but the evidence is uncertain. The overall certainty of the evidence is very low because of the uncertainty in the estimates for breast cancer incidence, interval breast cancers, and the number of women called back for another exam (recall rate). Other critical outcomes were not measured in the studies.
The evidence shows that there may be more breast cancers detected in the first round of screening (0.7 more per 100) of which 0.6 are invasive. This benefit is large, but it is uncertain. However, there may be a large number of women who are incorrectly called back for another exam or biopsy (15% more women when adding ABUS) There would also be large costs associated with ABUS, but the overall cost-effectiveness could vary across settings. While ABUS may be acceptable to some women, it is probably not acceptable to payers because of the high costs. It is probably not feasible to implement because of the greater needs for training and time to use ABUS and the lack of reimbursement. In the short and mid-term, the addition of ABUS to current screening protocols is likely not feasible, but it could be feasible in the long term if there are improvements in the technology. Given the lack of accessibility and feasibility, the GDG agreed that at a health care level, adding an ABUS would increase health inequities.
Subgroup considerations
The studies included women with BI-RADS C and D. There are likely fewer benefits in women with BI-RADS C and therefore the recommendation may be considered even stronger in this group.
Considerations for implementation and policy making
The acceptability of not providing ABUS may vary amongst women. Therefore, when asked it will be important to share information about classification of breast density, availability of ABUS, and the benefits and harms of ABUS for women with high mammographic breast density and a negative mammography.
Monitoring and evaluation
Research priorities include:
- more research into measuring and classifying breast density,
- information to provide to women and communication,
- studies evaluating different screening frequencies and age to stop screening in women with high mammographic breast density.
- The role of Artificial Intelligence should be further investigated.
- The creation of an European consortium for a screening database would be beneficial in evaluating the efficacy of additional tests (e.g. MRI, ABUS, abMRI).
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