<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Kerlikowske K</submitter><funding>Agency for Health Research and Quality</funding><funding>AHRQ HHS</funding><funding>National Cancer Institute</funding><funding>Lake Champlain Cancer Research Organization</funding><funding>NCI NIH HHS</funding><funding>University of Vermont Cancer Center</funding><funding>Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium</funding><funding>Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute</funding><pagination>249-257</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10852604</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>116(2)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Examining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score-matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history </pubmed_abstract><journal>Journal of the National Cancer Institute</journal><pubmed_title>Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC10852604</pmcid><funding_grant_id>P01CA154292</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>R01 HS018366</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>R01 HS018366-01A1</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>#032800</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>U54CA163303</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>PCS-1504-30370</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>U54 CA163303</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>P01 CA154292</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Su YR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>O'Meara ES</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tosteson ANA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Stout NK</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Onega T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wernli K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhu W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sprague BL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Henderson LM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kerlikowske K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Miglioretti DL</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Examining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score-matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history </description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Feb</publication><modification>2026-06-04T11:11:12.711Z</modification><creation>2025-04-20T00:45:56.332Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC10852604</accession><cross_references><pubmed>37897090</pubmed><doi>10.1093/jnci/djad201</doi></cross_references></HashMap>