The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Open accessAbstract
DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for breast cancer. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the following: effectiveness of breast cancer screening in reducing breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, as well as the incidence of advanced breast cancer and treatment-related morbidity; harms of breast cancer screening; test performance characteristics of digital breast tomosynthesis as a primary screening strategy; and adjunctive screening in women with increased breast density. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed comparative decision models on optimal starting and stopping ages and intervals for screening mammography; how breast density, breast cancer risk, and comorbidity level affect the balance of benefit and harms of screening mammography; and the number of radiation-induced breast cancer cases and deaths associated with different screening mammography strategies over the course of a woman's lifetime. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women aged 40 years or older who do not have preexisting breast cancer or a previously diagnosed high-risk breast lesion and who are not at high risk for breast cancer because of a known underlying genetic mutation (such as a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation or other familial breast cancer syndrome) or a history of chest radiation at a young age. RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The decision to start screening mammography in women prior to age 50 years should be an individual one. Women who place a higher value on the potential benefit than the potential harms may choose to begin biennial screening between the ages of 40 and 49 years. (C recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women aged 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a primary screening method for breast cancer. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of adjunctive screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), DBT, or other methods in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“To achieve this goal, all screening programs rely on cancer risk models, which predict who is likely to develop cancer at a future point in time.”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [95]
In the citing paper
“To achieve this goal, all screening programs rely on cancer risk models, which predict who is likely to develop cancer at a future point in time.”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
Citations
Cites
Siegel, R., Ma, J., Zou, Z., & Jemal, A. (2014) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21208 · Cited by 11,499
Race, Breast Cancer Subtypes, and Survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study
Carey, L., Perou, C. M., Livasy, C., Dressler, L. G., Cowan, D., Conway, K., Karaca, G., Troester, M. A., Tse, C. K., Edmiston, S. N., et al. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.21.2492 · Cited by 3,888
Bauer, K. R., Brown, M. M., Cress, R. D., Parise, C. A., & Caggiano, V. (2007) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.22618 · Cited by 2,069
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C. A., Hendrick, E. R., Yaffe, M. J., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L. W., D'Orsi, C. J., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052911 · Cited by 1,937
Screening for breast cancer with mammography
Gøtzsche, P. C., & Jørgensen, K. J. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001877.pub5 · Cited by 1,886
Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk
Oeffinger, K. C., Fontham, E. T. H., Etzioni, R., Herzig, A. H., Michaelson, J. S., Shih, Y. T., Walter, L. C., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., LaMonte, S. J., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783 · Cited by 1,706
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 1,685
Breast cancer statistics, 2015: Convergence of incidence rates between black and white women
Desantis, C. E., Fedewa, S. A., Sauer, A. G., Kramer, J. L., Smith, R. A., & Jemal, A. (2015) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21320 · Cited by 1,253
The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review
Screening, T. I. U. P. O. B. C., Marmot, M. G., Altman, D. G., Cameron, D., Dewar, J. A., Thompson, S. G., & Wilcox, M. (2013) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.177 · Cited by 1,153
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Sabatino SA, 2015, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 64, 464
Cited by
Sorted by citations
International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening
McKinney, S. M., Sieniek, M., Godbole, V., Godwin, J., Antropova, N., Ashrafian, H., Back, T., Chesus, M., Corrado, G. S., Darzi, A., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6 · Cited by 3,287
Breast cancer statistics, 2019
Desantis, C. E., Ma, J., Gaudet, M. M., Newman, L. A., Miller, K. D., Sauer, A. G., Jemal, A., & Siegel, R. L. (2019) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21583 · Cited by 3,222
Harbeck, N., Penault-Llorca, F., Cortes, J., Gnant, M., Houssami, N., Poortmans, P., Ruddy, K., Tsang, J., & Cardoso, F. (2019) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0111-2 · Cited by 3,024
Breast Cancer Statistics, 2022
Giaquinto, A. N., Sung, H., Miller, K. D., Kramer, J. L., Newman, L. A., Minihan, A. K., Jemal, A., & Siegel, R. L. (2022) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21754 · Cited by 2,473
The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores
Torkamani, A., Wineinger, N. E., & Topol, E. J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-018-0018-x · Cited by 1,655
Metadata
- Authors
- Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
- Affiliations
- United States Preventive Services Task Force (US)
- Corresponding author
- on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
- ORCID
- Siu, Albert L.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2016-02-16
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 279-296
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2283351472
- Cited by
- 2,094
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 195 · 2023: 229 · 2022: 236 · 2021: 216 · 2020: 206 · 2019: 170 · 2018: 185 · 2017: 163 · 2016: 130
- FWCI
- 193.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Keywords
- breast cancer screening, mammography screening, digital breast tomosynthesis, breast density, dense breasts, breast ultrasound, breast MRI, radiation-induced breast cancer, screening harms, breast cancer mortality, women over 40
- MeSH terms
- Medical Overuse, Breast Density, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Risk Assessment, Biomedical Research, Mammary Glands, Human, Early Detection of Cancer
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
