brand logo

Am Fam Physician. 2026;113(2):191-192

Author disclosure: Dr. Ebell is cofounder and editor-in-chief of Essential Evidence Plus.

CLINICAL QUESTION

For women with dense breasts, which supplemental study (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], automated whole breast ultrasonography, or contrast-enhanced mammography) had the greatest yield for cancer following a normal mammogram result?

BOTTOM LINE

Contrast-enhanced mammography and MRI have high rates of cancer detection (1.6%–1.7%) in women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, even after a normal mammogram result. Contrast-enhanced mammography may be a less expensive option for large-scale screening programs, although it comes with a small risk of contrast reaction. Further follow-up from this study and the previous Dutch study is necessary to understand the screening impact on interval cancers, overdiagnosis, and mortality. (Level of Evidence = 1b)

SYNOPSIS

Women with increased breast density are at higher risk of having an invasive breast cancer being detected when it is larger. Ultrasonography and MRI have been proposed as supplemental screening for these women, although it is not formally endorsed by any organization. Breast density is graded on a 4-point scale, and the UK researchers identified 9,361 women with grade C (heterogeneously dense) or grade D (uniformly dense) breast density who had a normal screening mammogram. The women were randomized to one of four groups: no supplemental screening (usual care), MRI, automated whole breast ultrasonography, or contrast-enhanced mammography. The latter uses a low-ionic iodinated intravenous contrast media. The median age of participants was 56 years, approximately 80% had grade C density, 20% had grade D density, and more than 90% completed the assigned supplemental screening within 6 months. Cancer detection and recall rates were not available for the usual care group, but that group will contribute data to subsequent publications that will report the rates of interval cancers and cancers at round two of screening. Results of the first round of screening are summarized in Table 1.

Already a member/subscriber?  Log In

Subscribe

From $180
  • Immediate, unlimited access to all AFP content
  • More than 125 CME credits/year
  • Print delivery available
Subscribe

Issue Access

$59.95
  • Immediate, unlimited access to this issue's content
  • CME credits
  • Print delivery available
Interested in AAFP membership?  Learn More

POEMs (patient-oriented evidence that matters) are provided by Essential Evidence Plus, a point-of-care clinical decision support system published by Wiley-Blackwell. For more information, see http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com. Copyright Wiley-Blackwell. Used with permission.

For definitions of levels of evidence used in POEMs, see https://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/Home/Loe?show=Sort.

Primary Care Update, a free podcast focused on POEMs, is available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This series is coordinated by Natasha J. Pyzocha, DO, contributing editor.

A collection of POEMs published in AFP is available at https://www.aafp.org/afp/poems.

Continue Reading

More in AFP

Copyright © 2026 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.

This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP.  See permissions for copyright questions and/or permission requests.