American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures: 2009–2010. Accessed July 1, 2023. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures.html

• PubMed
American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures: 2009–2010. Accessed July 1, 2023. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures.html)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, et al. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023;73:17–48.

• PubMed
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023;73:17–48.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 2022;72:524–541.

• PubMed
Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, Breast cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 2022;72:524–541.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, et al. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347–360.

• PubMed
Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347–360.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Brown A, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria transgender breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18(Suppl 11):S502–515.

• PubMed
Brown A, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, ACR Appropriateness Criteria transgender breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18(Suppl 11):S502–515.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Parmigiani G, Berry D, Aguilar O. Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:145–158.

• PubMed
Parmigiani G, Berry D, Aguilar O. Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:145–158.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 2004;23:1111–1130.

• PubMed
Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 2004;23:1111–1130.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J, et al. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer 2008;98:1457–1466.

• PubMed
Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J, The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer 2008;98:1457–1466.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mittra I, Mishra GA, Dikshit RP, et al. Effect of screening by clinical breast examination on breast cancer incidence and mortality after 20 years: prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial in Mumbai. BMJ 2021;372:n256.

• PubMed
Mittra I, Mishra GA, Dikshit RP, Effect of screening by clinical breast examination on breast cancer incidence and mortality after 20 years: prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial in Mumbai. BMJ 2021;372:n256.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:583–589.

• PubMed
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:583–589.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267:47–56.

• PubMed
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267:47–56.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266:104–113.

• PubMed
Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266:104–113.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311:2499–2507.

• PubMed
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311:2499–2507.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, et al. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 2015;274:337–342.

• PubMed
Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 2015;274:337–342.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Ice MF, et al. A reader study comparing prospective tomosynthesis interpretations with retrospective readings of the corresponding FFDM examinations. Acad Radiol 2014;21:1204–1210.

• PubMed
Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Ice MF, A reader study comparing prospective tomosynthesis interpretations with retrospective readings of the corresponding FFDM examinations. Acad Radiol 2014;21:1204–1210.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R. Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci 2014;4:9.

• PubMed
Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R. Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci 2014;4:9.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, et al. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 2016;26:184–190.

• PubMed
Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 2016;26:184–190.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110:942–949.

• PubMed
Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110:942–949.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Heindel W, Weigel S, Gerss J, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2022;23:601–611.

• PubMed
Heindel W, Weigel S, Gerss J, Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2022;23:601–611.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Moshina N, Aase HS, Danielsen AS, et al. Comparing screening outcomes for digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography by automated breast density in a randomized controlled trial: results from the to-be trial. Radiology 2020;297:522–531.

• PubMed
Moshina N, Aase HS, Danielsen AS, Comparing screening outcomes for digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography by automated breast density in a randomized controlled trial: results from the to-be trial. Radiology 2020;297:522–531.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, et al. Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:635–642.

• PubMed
Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:635–642.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Margolies L, Cohen A, Sonnenblick E, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis changes management in patients seen at a tertiary care breast center. ISRN Radiol 2014;2014:658929.

• PubMed
Margolies L, Cohen A, Sonnenblick E, Digital breast tomosynthesis changes management in patients seen at a tertiary care breast center. ISRN Radiol 2014;2014:658929.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology 2015;277:697–706.

• PubMed
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology 2015;277:697–706.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P, et al. A randomized trial comparing breast cancer incidence and interval cancers after tomosynthesis plus mammography versus mammography alone. Radiology 2022;303:256–266.

• PubMed
Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P, A randomized trial comparing breast cancer incidence and interval cancers after tomosynthesis plus mammography versus mammography alone. Radiology 2022;303:256–266.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, et al. Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 2016;281:730–736.

• PubMed
Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 2016;281:730–736.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 2014;271:655–663.

• PubMed
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 2014;271:655–663.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Abdullah P, Alabousi M, Ramadan S, et al. Synthetic 2D mammography versus standard 2D digital mammography: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;217:314–325.

• PubMed
Abdullah P, Alabousi M, Ramadan S, Synthetic 2D mammography versus standard 2D digital mammography: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;217:314–325.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

MD Anderson Cancer Center. Breast cancer screening. Accessed April 10, 2023. Available at: https://www.mdanderson.org/content/dam/mdanderson/documents/for-physicians/algorithms/screening/screening-breast-web-algorithm.pdf

• PubMed
MD Anderson Cancer Center. Breast cancer screening. Accessed April 10, 2023. Available at: https://www.mdanderson.org/content/dam/mdanderson/documents/for-physicians/algorithms/screening/screening-breast-web-algorithm.pdf)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM, et al. Comparison of abbreviated breast MRI vs digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection among women with dense breasts undergoing screening. JAMA 2020;323:746–756.

• PubMed
Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM, Comparison of abbreviated breast MRI vs digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection among women with dense breasts undergoing screening. JAMA 2020;323:746–756.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Baxter GC, Selamoglu A, Mackay JW, et al. A meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI and a full diagnostic protocol in breast cancer. Clin Radiol 2021;76:154.e123–132.

• PubMed
Baxter GC, Selamoglu A, Mackay JW, A meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI and a full diagnostic protocol in breast cancer. Clin Radiol 2021;76:154.e123–132.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Geach R, Jones LI, Harding SA, et al. The potential utility of abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) as a tool for breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2021;76:154.e11–22.

• PubMed
Geach R, Jones LI, Harding SA, The potential utility of abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) as a tool for breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2021;76:154.e11–22.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Hruska CB. Molecular breast imaging for screening in dense breasts: state of the art and future directions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:275–283.

• PubMed
Hruska CB. Molecular breast imaging for screening in dense breasts: state of the art and future directions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:275–283.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Shermis RB, Wilson KD, Doyle MT, et al. Supplemental breast cancer screening with molecular breast imaging for women with dense breast tissue. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:450–457.

• PubMed
Shermis RB, Wilson KD, Doyle MT, Supplemental breast cancer screening with molecular breast imaging for women with dense breast tissue. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:450–457.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Jochelson M. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:609–616.

• PubMed
Jochelson M. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:609–616.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Covington MF, Parent EE, Dibble EH, et al. Advances and future directions in molecular breast imaging. J Nucl Med 2022;63:17–21.

• PubMed
Covington MF, Parent EE, Dibble EH, Advances and future directions in molecular breast imaging. J Nucl Med 2022;63:17–21.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Zanardo M, Cozzi A, Trimboli RM, et al. Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review. Insights Imaging 2019;10:76.

• PubMed
Zanardo M, Cozzi A, Trimboli RM, Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review. Insights Imaging 2019;10:76.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Gennaro G, Cozzi A, Schiaffino S, et al. Radiation dose of contrast- enhanced mammography: a two-center prospective comparison. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:1774.

• PubMed
Gennaro G, Cozzi A, Schiaffino S, Radiation dose of contrast- enhanced mammography: a two-center prospective comparison. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:1774.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Nelson HD, Zakher B, Cantor A, et al. Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:635–648.

• PubMed
Nelson HD, Zakher B, Cantor A, Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:635–648.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, 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.

• PubMed
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081–1087.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Chiu SY, Duffy S, Yen AM, et al. Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:1219–1228.

• PubMed
Chiu SY, Duffy S, Yen AM, Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:1219–1228.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Vachon CM, Sellers TA, Scott CG, et al. Longitudinal breast density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract 4828.

• PubMed
Vachon CM, Sellers TA, Scott CG, Longitudinal breast density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract 4828.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju255.

• PubMed
Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju255.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Richman I, Asch SM, Bendavid E, et al. Breast density notification legislation and breast cancer stage at diagnosis: early evidence from the SEER registry. J Gen Intern Med 2017;32:603–609.

• PubMed
Richman I, Asch SM, Bendavid E, Breast density notification legislation and breast cancer stage at diagnosis: early evidence from the SEER registry. J Gen Intern Med 2017;32:603–609.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

US Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act. Accessed April 1, 2023. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/10/2023-04550/mammography-quality-standards-act

• PubMed
US Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act. Accessed April 1, 2023. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/10/2023-04550/mammography-quality-standards-act)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Berg WA, Harvey JA Breast density and supplemental screening. Accessed April 1, 2023. Available at: https://www.sbi-online.org/white-papers/breast-density-and-supplemental-screening

• PubMed
Berg WA, Harvey JA Breast density and supplemental screening. Accessed April 1, 2023. Available at: https://www.sbi-online.org/white-papers/breast-density-and-supplemental-screening)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151–2163.

• PubMed
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151–2163.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Weinstein SP, Slanetz PJ, Lewin AA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria supplemental breast cancer screening based on breast density. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18(Suppl 11):S456–473.

• PubMed
Weinstein SP, Slanetz PJ, Lewin AA, ACR Appropriateness Criteria supplemental breast cancer screening based on breast density. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18(Suppl 11):S456–473.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bhatia S, Robison LL, Oberlin O, et al. Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med 1996;334:745–751.

• PubMed
Bhatia S, Robison LL, Oberlin O, Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med 1996;334:745–751.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bhatia S, Yasui Y, Robison LL, et al. High risk of subsequent neoplasms continues with extended follow-up of childhood Hodgkin’s disease: report from the Late Effects Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4386–4394.

• PubMed
Bhatia S, Yasui Y, Robison LL, High risk of subsequent neoplasms continues with extended follow-up of childhood Hodgkin’s disease: report from the Late Effects Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4386–4394.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Hancock SL, Tucker MA, Hoppe RT. Breast cancer after treatment of Hodgkin’s disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:25–31.

• PubMed
Hancock SL, Tucker MA, Hoppe RT. Breast cancer after treatment of Hodgkin’s disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:25–31.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Metayer C, Lynch CF, Clarke EA, et al. Second cancers among long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s disease diagnosed in childhood and adolescence. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2435–2443.

• PubMed
Metayer C, Lynch CF, Clarke EA, Second cancers among long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s disease diagnosed in childhood and adolescence. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2435–2443.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

van Leeuwen FE, Klokman WJ, Stovall M, et al. Roles of radiation dose, chemotherapy, and hormonal factors in breast cancer following Hodgkin’s disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:971–980.

• PubMed
van Leeuwen FE, Klokman WJ, Stovall M, Roles of radiation dose, chemotherapy, and hormonal factors in breast cancer following Hodgkin’s disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:971–980.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Yahalom J, Petrek JA, Biddinger PW, et al. Breast cancer in patients irradiated for Hodgkin’s disease: a clinical and pathologic analysis of 45 events in 37 patients. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1674–1681.

• PubMed
Yahalom J, Petrek JA, Biddinger PW, Breast cancer in patients irradiated for Hodgkin’s disease: a clinical and pathologic analysis of 45 events in 37 patients. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1674–1681.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Travis LB, Hill D, Dores GM, et al. Cumulative absolute breast cancer risk for young women treated for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1428–1437.

• PubMed
Travis LB, Hill D, Dores GM, Cumulative absolute breast cancer risk for young women treated for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1428–1437.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Oeffinger KC, Ford JS, Moskowitz CS, et al. Breast cancer surveillance practices among women previously treated with chest radiation for a childhood cancer. JAMA 2009;301:404–414.

• PubMed
Oeffinger KC, Ford JS, Moskowitz CS, Breast cancer surveillance practices among women previously treated with chest radiation for a childhood cancer. JAMA 2009;301:404–414.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ng AK, Garber JE, Diller LR, et al. Prospective study of the efficacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic screening in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2282–2288.

• PubMed
Ng AK, Garber JE, Diller LR, Prospective study of the efficacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic screening in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2282–2288.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, et al. Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1541–1548.

• PubMed
Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1541–1548.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1879–1886.

• PubMed
Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1879–1886.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Gail MH, Costantino JP. Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:334–335.

• PubMed
Gail MH, Costantino JP. Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:334–335.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, et al. Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:358–366.

• PubMed
Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:358–366.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Spiegelman D, Colditz GA, Hunter D, et al. Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:600–607.

• PubMed
Spiegelman D, Colditz GA, Hunter D, Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:600–607.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

King TA, Pilewskie M, Muhsen S, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a 29-year longitudinal experience evaluating clinicopathologic features and breast cancer risk. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:3945–3952.

• PubMed
King TA, Pilewskie M, Muhsen S, Lobular carcinoma in situ: a 29-year longitudinal experience evaluating clinicopathologic features and breast cancer risk. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:3945–3952.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Laws A, Katlin F, Hans M, et al. Screening MRI does not increase cancer detection or result in an earlier stage at diagnosis for patients with high-risk breast lesions: a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2023;30:68–77.

• PubMed
Laws A, Katlin F, Hans M, Screening MRI does not increase cancer detection or result in an earlier stage at diagnosis for patients with high-risk breast lesions: a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2023;30:68–77.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Hogan MP, Amir T, Sevilimedu V, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography screening for intermediate-risk women with a history of lobular neoplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:1486–1491.

• PubMed
Hogan MP, Amir T, Sevilimedu V, Contrast-enhanced digital mammography screening for intermediate-risk women with a history of lobular neoplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:1486–1491.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Neeter LMFH, Robbe MMQ, van Nijnatten TJ, et al. Comparing the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer 2023;14:174–182.

• PubMed
Neeter LMFH, Robbe MMQ, van Nijnatten TJ, Comparing the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer 2023;14:174–182.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Sung JS, Lebron L, Keating D, et al. Performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography for screening women at increased risk of breast cancer. Radiology 2019;293:81–88.

• PubMed
Sung JS, Lebron L, Keating D, Performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography for screening women at increased risk of breast cancer. Radiology 2019;293:81–88.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Jochelson MS, Pinker K, Dershaw DD, et al. Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol 2017;97:37–43.

• PubMed
Jochelson MS, Pinker K, Dershaw DD, Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol 2017;97:37–43.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation