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)
Tailored screening with tomosynthesis
Issued on: May 2023
Healthcare question
Should tailored screening with additional digital breast tomosynthesis vs. no additional digital breast tomosynthesis be used in organised screening programmes for early detection of breast cancer in asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density detected for the first time with digital mammography in screening?
Recommendation
For asymptomatic women with high mammographic breast density detected for the first time with digital mammography (DM), the ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group (GDG) suggests implementing tailored screening with additional digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the context of an organised population-based screening programme.
Recommendation strength
| Conditional recommendation |
| Very low certainty of the evidence |
Justification
The majority of the GDG agreed that the balance of desirable and undesirable effects probably favours the addition of DBT. The overall certainty in the evidence is very low because of uncertainty in the estimates for interval breast cancers, false positives and invasive breast cancers, and the absence of data for the downstream impact on breast cancer mortality.
The evidence shows that with the addition of DBT, there are more breast cancers detected. In addition, there may be more invasive breast cancers detected, although the proportion to non-invasive ductal carcinoma (DCIS) which are clinically less relevant cancers, is unknown. Adding DBT may have little to no effect on interval breast cancers, but this evidence is very uncertain. Overall, the moderate desirable effects of adding DBT probably outweigh the small increase in false positives.
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.
The majority of the GDG agreed with the recommendation: 8 members voted for a conditional recommendation for the addition of DBT, 3 members voted for a conditional recommendation for either adding or not adding DBT, 1 member voted for a conditional recommendation against adding DBT, and 1 member abstained.
Monitoring and evaluation
- 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
- 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 determing breast density. Research should also aim at establishing the appropriate density threshold for additional imaging.
- An optimal combination of screening modalities in women with high breast density should be conducted in the research setting.
- Additional research on the subgroups who could possibly benefit from DBT (not only for women with high density but also for other potential risk factors e.g., age groups for risk stratification).
- Additional trials providing further evidence on second round breast cancer detections, including information on the downstream consequences.
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