Korean J Radiol.  2010 Dec;11(6):589-593. 10.3348/kjr.2010.11.6.589.

Supplementary Screening Sonography in Mammographically Dense Breast: Pros and Cons

  • 1Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 120-752, Korea. ekkim@yuhs.ac


Sonography is an attractive supplement to mammography in breast cancer screening because it is relatively inexpensive, requires no contrast-medium injection, is well tolerated by patients, and is widely available for equipment as compared with MRI. Sonography has been especially valuable for women with mammographically dense breast because it has consistently been able to detect a substantial number of cancers at an early stage. Despite these findings, breast sonography has known limitations as a screening tool; operator-dependence, the shortage of skilled operators, the inability to detect microcalcifications, and substantially higher false-positive rates than mammography. Further study of screening sonography is still ongoing and is expected to help establish the role of screening sonography.


Breast screening; Screening ultrasound; Breast cancer

MeSH Terms

Breast Neoplasms/pathology/radiography/*ultrasonography
Diagnosis, Differential
Mass Screening
Observer Variation
Predictive Value of Tests
*Ultrasonography, Mammary

Cited by  1 articles

Commentary on: Incidental Breast Cancers Identified in a One-Stop Symptomatic Breast Clinic
Jeong Eon Lee, Jung-Hyun Yang, Seok Jin Nam
J Breast Cancer. 2011;14(2):165-166.    doi: 10.4048/jbc.2011.14.2.165.


1. Berg WA. Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007. 45:895–906.
2. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP 3rd, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003. 53:141–169.
3. Houssami N, Lord SJ, Ciatto S. Breast cancer screening: emerging role of new imaging techniques as adjuncts to mammography. Med J Aust. 2009. 190:493–497.
4. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 180:1225–1228.
5. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology. 1998. 207:191–199.
6. Ciatto S, Visioli C, Paci E, Zappa M. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer. 2004. 90:393–396.
7. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000. 92:1081–1087.
8. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002. 225:165–175.
9. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003. 138:168–175.
10. Kolb TM. Karellas A, editor. Breast US for screening diagnosing, and staging breast cancer: issues and controversies. RSNA Categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics: advances in breast imaging-physics, technology, and clinical applications. 2004. Oakbrook, IL: Radiological Society of North America;247–257.
11. Feig SA. Feig SA, editor. Current status of screening US. 2005 Syllabus: categorical course in diagnostic radiology-breast imaging. 2005. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America;143–154.
12. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer. 1995. 76:626–630.
13. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D'Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 180:1675–1679.
14. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001. 221:641–649.
15. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer. 2008. 44:539–544.
16. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2009. 9:335.
17. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004. 42:845–851.
18. Stavros AT. McAllister L, Donnellan K, Martin SP, Rothschild R, editors. Breast anatomy: the basis for understanding sonography. Breast ultrasound. 2004. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;56–108.
19. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008. 299:2151–2163.
20. Bevers TB. Ultrasound for the screening of breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2008. 10:527–528.
21. Tabar L, Gad A, Parsons WC, Neeland DB. Silverstein MJ, Recht A, Lagios MD, editors. Mammographic appearances of in situ carcinomas. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. 2002. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;87–104.
22. Merritt CR. Future directions in breast ultrasonography. Semin Breast Dis. 1999. 2:89–96.
23. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 180:941–948.
24. Gordon PB. Ultrasound for breast cancer screening and staging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002. 40:431–441.
25. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology. 2006. 241:355–365.
26. Kuhl CK. The "coming of age" of nonmammographic screening for breast cancer. JAMA. 2008. 299:2203–2205.
27. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009. 192:390–399.
28. Philpotts LE, Smith RA. Screening for breast cancer. Semin Roentgenol. 2003. 38:19–33.
29. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010. 20:734–742.
30. Bassett LW, Jackson VP, Fu KL, Fu YS. Ross A, Pontee E, editors. The medical audit. Diagnosis of diseases of the breast. 2005. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders;135–148.
31. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dünser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2000. 21:325–336.
32. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 181:177–182.
Full Text Links
  • KJR
export Copy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr