Screening for Breast Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale
Abstract
This statement summarizes the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on screening for breast cancer and the supporting scientific evidence and updates the 1996 USPSTF recommendations on this topic. The complete USPSTF recommendation and rationale statement on this topic, which includes a brief review of the supporting evidence, is available through the USPSTF Web site (www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov), the National Guideline Clearinghouse (www.guideline.gov), and in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (telephone, 800-358-9295; e-mail, ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov). The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the accompanying article in this issue and in the summary of the evidence and systematic evidence review on the Web sites already mentioned. To update its recommendations on screening for breast cancer, the USPSTF reviewed the evidence regarding the effectiveness of mammography, clinical breast examination, and breast self-examination in reducing breast cancer mortality. The USPSTF did not review the evidence regarding genetic screening, surveillance of women with prior breast cancer, or formal evaluation of new screening modalities that have not been studied in the general population. A meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects model was conducted for the USPSTF to obtain a summary of relative risk estimates of the effectiveness of screening with mammography, either alone or in combination with clinical breast examination, in reducing breast cancer mortality. Clinical studies that evaluated breast self-examination were included in the review. Sources for estimates cited in this Recommendation and Rationale statement are described in the systematic evidence review on this topic, which is available on the USPSTF Web site (www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov). * For a list of the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, see the Appendix.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Favorable results from randomized trials conducted in the United States and Europe have established the value of routine screening with mammography, and repeated analysis and updates of individual trial data, as well as meta-analyses, have demonstrated the efficacy of mammography for reducing breast cancer deaths in women ages 40 to 69.
“Favorable results from randomized trials conducted in the United States and Europe have established the value of routine screening with mammography, and over the past 3 decades repeated analysis and updates of individual trial data, as well as meta-analyses, have demonstrated the efficacy of mammography for reducing breast cancer deaths in women ages 40 to 69. 126,127”
Cites
American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: update 1997
Leitch, A. M., Dodd, G. D., Costanza, M., Linver, M. N., Pressman, P., McGinnis, L. S., & Smith, R. A. (1997) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.47.3.150 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening.
Feig, S., D'Orsi, C. J., Hendrick, R., Jackson, V. P., Kopans, D., Monsees, B. S., Sickles, E., Stelling, C. B., Zinninger, M., & Wilcox‐Buchalla, P. (1998) · AJR. American journal of roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648758 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Ferrini, R. L., Mannino, E., Ramsdell, E., et al. (1996) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(18)30289-7 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Eyre, H., Kahn, R., Robertson, R. M., the ACS/ADA/AHA Collaborative Writing Committee, ACS/ADA/AHA Collaborative Writing Committee Members, Clark, N. G., Doyle, C., Hong, Y., Gansler, T., Glynn, T., et al. (2004) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000133321.00456.00 · Cited by 542 · see citing works
Chochinov, H. M., Martens, P. J., Prior, H. J., Fransoo, R., & Burland, E. (2009) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2009.04.022 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Yip, C. H., & Anderson, B. O. (2007) · Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy · doi:10.1586/14737140.7.8.1095 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force*
- Corresponding author
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force*
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2002-09-03
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 5_Part_1
- Pages
- 344-346
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W1507155876
- Cited by
- 456
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 15.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Keywords
- breast cancer screening, mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, breast cancer mortality, screening effectiveness, USPSTF recommendations
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Physical Examination, Risk Factors, United States, Breast Self-Examination, Evidence-Based Medicine
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