The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Practice Bulletin Number 179: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death in American women (1). Regular screening mammography starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality in average-risk women (2). Screening, however, also exposes women to harm through false-positive test results and overdiagnosis of biologically indolent lesions. Differences in balancing benefits and harms have led to differences among major guidelines about what age to start, what age to stop, and how frequently to recommend mammography screening in average-risk women (2–4). Breast cancer risk assessment is very important for identifying women who may benefit from more intensive breast cancer surveillance; however, there is no standardized approach to office-based breast cancer risk assessment in the United States. This can lead to missed opportunities to identify women at high risk of breast cancer and may result in applying average-risk screening recommendations to high-risk women. Risk assessment and identification of women at high risk allow for referral to health care providers with expertise in cancer genetics counseling and testing for breast cancer-related germline mutations (eg, BRCA), patient counseling about risk-reduction options, and cascade testing to identify family members who also may be at increased risk. The purpose of this Practice Bulletin is to discuss breast cancer risk assessment, review breast cancer screening guidelines in average-risk women, and outline some of the controversies surrounding breast cancer screening. It will present recommendations for using a framework of shared decision making to assist women in balancing their personal values regarding benefits and harms of screening at various ages and intervals to make personal screening choices from within a range of reasonable options. Recommendations for women at elevated risk and discussion of new technologies, such as tomosynthesis, are beyond the scope of this document and are addressed in other publications of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (5–7).
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
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Present and future directions
McGivney, W. T. (1998) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980515)82:10+<2057::aid-cncr14>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 16,766
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2017) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21387 · Cited by 14,712
American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography
Saslow, D., Boetes, C., Burke, W., Harms, S., Leach, M. O., Lehman, C. D., Morris, E., Pisano, E., Schnall, M., Sener, S., et al. (2007) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75 · Cited by 2,637
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2886 · Cited by 2,094
Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008 · Cited by 1,686
Prognostic Indices for Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Yourman, L. C., Lee, S. J., Schonberg, M. A., Widera, E. W., & Smith, A. K. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1966 · Cited by 736
Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
Myers, E. R., Moorman, P., Gierisch, J. M., Havrilesky, L. J., Grimm, L. J., Ghate, S., Davidson, B., Mongtomery, R. C., Crowley, M. J., McCrory, D. C., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13183 · Cited by 637
Mandelblatt, J. S., Cronin, K. A., Bailey, S., Berry, D. A., de Koning, H. J., Draisma, G., Huang, H., Lee, S. J., Munsell, M., Plevritis, S. K., et al. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00010 · Cited by 605
Moderate Alcohol Intake and Cancer Incidence in Women
Allen, N. E., Beral, V., Casabonne, D., Kan, S. W., Reeves, G. K., Brown, A., Green, J., & Collaborators, O. B. O. T. M. W. S. (2009) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djn514 · Cited by 600
Assessing Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Assessment Models
Amir, E., Freedman, O. C., Seruga, B., & Evans, D. G. (2010) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djq088 · Cited by 464
Cited by
Global guidelines for breast cancer screening: A systematic review
Ren, W., Chen, M., Qiao, Y., & Zhao, F. (2022) · The Breast · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.04.003 · Cited by 325
Targeted Cancer Stem Cell Therapeutics: An Update
Fatima, N., Umar, M., Ambreen, S., Shaququzzaman, M., Alam, M. M., & Ali, R. (2025) · Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.2174/0115680266275014240110071351 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e1-e16
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4242833523
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 14.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Practice Bulletin Number 179: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aog.0000000000002158
- The paper
- Practice Bulletin Number 179: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women. (2017). Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000002158
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.