Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cancer Yield of Mammography, MR, and US in High-Risk Women: Prospective Multi-Institution Breast Cancer Screening Study

Open access
Lehman, Constance D., Isaacs, Claudine, Schnall, Mitchell D., Pisano, Etta D., Ascher, Susan M., Weatherall, Paul T., Bluemke, David A., Bowen, Deborah J., Marcom, P. Kelly, Armstrong, Deborah K., Domchek, Susan M., Tomlinson, Gail, Skates, Steven J., Gatsonis, Constantine·2007·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine cancer yield, callback and biopsy rates, and positive predictive value (PPV) of mammography, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and ultrasonography (US) in women at high risk for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant, and informed consent was obtained. We conducted a prospective pilot study of screening mammography, MR, and US in asymptomatic women 25 years of age or older who were genetically at high risk, defined as BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers or with at least a 20% probability of carrying a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. All imaging modalities were performed within 90 days of each other. Data were analyzed by using exact confidence intervals (CIs) and the McNemar test. RESULTS: A total of 195 women were enrolled in this study over a 6-month period, and 171 completed all study examinations (mammography, US, and MR). Average age of the 171 participants was 46 years +/- 10.2 (standard deviation). Sixteen biopsies were performed and six cancers were detected, for an overall 3.5% cancer yield. MR enabled detection of all six cancers; mammography, two; and US, one. The diagnostic yields for each test were 3.5% for MR, 0.6% for US, and 1.2% for mammography. MR, US, and mammography findings prompted biopsy in 8.2%, 2.3%, and 2.3% of patients, respectively. None of the pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. The PPV of biopsies performed as a result of MR was 43%. CONCLUSION: Screening MR imaging had a higher biopsy rate but helped detect more cancers than either mammography or US. US had the highest false-negative rate compared with mammography and MR, enabling detection of only one in six cancers in high-risk women.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2442060461

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Lehman, C. D., Isaacs, C., Schnall, M. D., Pisano, E. D., Ascher, S. M., Weatherall, P. T., Bluemke, D. A., Bowen, D. J., Marcom, P. K., Armstrong, D. K., Domchek, S. M., Tomlinson, G., Skates, S. J., & Gatsonis, C.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2007-08
Volume
244
Issue
2
Pages
381-388
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2133591380
Cited by
396
References
2
FWCI
22.39
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: Cancer Yield of Mammography, MR, and US in High-Risk Women: Prospective Multi-Institution Breast Cancer Screening Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2442060461
The paper
Lehman, C. D., Isaacs, C., Schnall, M. D., Pisano, E. D., Ascher, S. M., Weatherall, P. T., Bluemke, D. A., Bowen, D. J., Marcom, P. K., Armstrong, D. K., Domchek, S. M., Tomlinson, G., Skates, S. J., & Gatsonis, C. (2007). Cancer Yield of Mammography, MR, and US in High-Risk Women: Prospective Multi-Institution Breast Cancer Screening Study. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2442060461

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.