The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Mammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for breast cancer. METHODS: Two thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: One hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bray, F., Jemal, A., Grey, N., Ferlay, J., & Forman, D. (2012) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(12)70211-5 · Cited by 2,223
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., Yaffe, M., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L., D'Orsi, C., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052911 · Cited by 1,940
Self-citationBerg, W. A. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.18.2151 · Cited by 1,526
Self-citationAmerican Joint Committee On Cancer (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-88443-1 · Cited by 1,386
Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Nelson, H. D., Tyne, K., Naik, A., Bougatsos, C., Chan, B. K., & Humphrey, L. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009 · Cited by 1,248
Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis
Forouzanfar, M. H., Foreman, K. J., Delossantos, A. M., Lozano, R., Lopez, A. D., Murray, C. J. L., & Naghavi, M. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61351-2 · Cited by 1,009
Kelly, K. M., Dean, J., Comulada, W. S., & Lee, S.-J. (2010) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1588-y · Cited by 497
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., Yaffe, M., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L., D???Orsi, C., et al. (2006) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000201894.94616.71 · Cited by 482
Self-citation
Cited by
Qian, X., Pei, J., Zheng, H., Xie, X., Yan, L., Zhang, H., Han, C., Gao, X., Zhang, H., Zheng, W., et al. (2021) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-021-00711-2 · Cited by 253
Denny, L., de Sanjose, S., Mutebi, M., Anderson, B. O., Kim, J., Jeronimo, J., Herrero, R., Yeates, K., Ginsburg, O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31795-0 · Cited by 246
AI: Can It Make a Difference to the Predictive Value of Ultrasound Breast Biopsy?
Browne, J. L., Pascual, M. Á., Perez, J., Salazar, S., Valero, B., Rodriguez, I., Cassina, D., Alcázar, J. L., Guerriero, S., & Graupera, B. (2023) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13040811 · Cited by 20
Huang, X., Qiu, Y., Bao, F., Wang, J., Lin, C., Lin, Y., Wu, J., & Yang, H. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1098639 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Berg, W. A., Bandos, A. I., Mendelson, E. B., Lehrer, D., Jong, R. A., & Pisano, E. D.
- Venue
- Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-12-28
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- djv367
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2253584488
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 14.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djv367
- The paper
- Berg, W. A., Bandos, A. I., Mendelson, E. B., Lehrer, D., Jong, R. A., & Pisano, E. D. (2016). Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv367
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.