[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-346242-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-346242-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","screening-outcomes-of-supplemental-automated-breast-ultrasound-in-women-with-nondense-breasts-undergoing-mammography","Screening Outcomes of Supplemental Automated Breast Ultrasound in Women With Nondense Breasts Undergoing Mammography","","Objective: Assess the diagnostic performance of supplemental automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) when added to mammography-based breast cancer screening in women with nondense breasts. Design: Retrospective database search across two tertiary institutions (Jan 2020–Dec 2023) in asymptomatic women with nondense breasts undergoing both digital mammography (DM) and ABUS. Primary outcome: cancer detection rate (CDR); secondary outcomes: sensitivity and specificity, including density subgroup analyses. Findings: ABUS plus DM increased CDR and sensitivity versus DM alone, with additional cancers detected only by ABUS.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/screening-outcomes-of-supplemental-automated-breast-ultrasound-in-women-with-nondense-breasts-undergoing-mammography/346242/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/screening-outcomes-of-supplemental-automated-breast-ultrasound-in-women-with-nondense-breasts-undergoing-mammography/346242.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jiven","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-22",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the study objective regarding ABUS in nondense breasts?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To evaluate how supplemental automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) added to mammography-based screening performs in women with nondense breasts.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How were outcomes measured in the study?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The primary outcome was the cancer detection rate (CDR), while sensitivity and specificity were treated as secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were done by breast density pattern.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What were the main results compared with mammography alone?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"ABUS plus DM showed higher CDR and sensitivity but lower specificity than DM alone. Benefits were mainly observed in women with scattered fibroglandular density, and some cancers were detected only by ABUS.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},346242,1790336806,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":55,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},1099513958607,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002390cf8733938c?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1778829742770036399","Original Article | Breast Imaging  \neISSN 2005-8330  \n[https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2025.1114](https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2025.1114)  \n[Korean J Radiol 2026](Korean J Radiol 2026);[27](27)([1](1))[:14-26](:14-26)  \nScreening Outcomes of Supplemental Automated Breast Ultrasound in Women With Nondense Breasts Undergoing Mammography  \nMi-ri Kwon1, Mi Yeon Lee2, Suhyeon Moon2, Eun Sook Ko3,4, Eun Young Ko3,4, Boo Kyung Han3,4, Inyoung Youn1, Yoon Jung Choi1, Shin Ho Kook1, Jai Min Ryu5, Ji Soo Choi3,4  \n1 Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 2 Division of Biostatistics, Department of R&D Management, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea 3 Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 4 Department of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea  \n5 Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea  \nObjective: To evaluate the performance of supplemental automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) added to mammography-based breast cancer screening for women with nondense breasts.  \nMaterials and Methods: A retrospective search of radiology databases at two tertiary institutions identified asymptomatic women with nondense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening using both digital mammography (DM) and supplemental ABUS between January 2020 and December 2023. We excluded women without sufficient follow-up data or those without an established final diagnosis, including histopathologic results. The performance measures of DM alone and ABUS combined with DM (ABUS plus DM) were compared. The primary outcome was the cancer detection rate (CDR), and the secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were performed for women with scattered fibroglandular density and almost entirely fatty breasts.  \nResults: A total of 2,904 pairs of screening examinations were performed in 1,683 women (59 ± 10 years), detecting 26 cancers. In comparison with DM alone, ABUS plus DM showed higher CDR (9.0 vs. 7.9 per 1,000 examinations, P \u003C 0.001), higher sensitivity (100%[26/26] vs. 88.5%[23/26], P \u003C 0.001), and lower specificity (95.0%[2,735/2,878] vs. 97.9%[2,817/2,878], P \u003C 0.001) . In women with scattered fibroglandular density, ABUS increased the CDR from 7.4 to 8.5 per 1,000 examinations and improved the sensitivity from 87.0%[20/23] to 100%[23/23](P \u003C 0.001) . In women with almost entirely fatty breasts, ABUS plus DM showed the same CDR (16.4 per 1,000 examinations) and sensitivity (100%[3/3]) as DM alone. Three cancers (11.5%[3/26]), all of which were stage T1N0, were detected only by supplemental ABUS. Conclusion: Supplemental ABUS improved cancer detection and sensitivity in women with nondense breasts, with the benefits primarily observed in those with scattered fibroglandular density.  \nKeywords: Breast; Breast cancer; Ultrasound; Screening  \nINTRODUCTION  \nDigital mammography (DM) is the primary screening modality for breast cancer and has been shown to significantly reduce breast cancer mortality. However, its sensitivity is  \nlimited in women with dense breast tissue [1-3]. Breast ultrasound (US) is widely used as a supplementary screening modality to address this limitation. Breast US has the advantage of not exposing the breast to radiation and is not affected by mammographic density. It can effectively detect  \nReceived: August 1, 2025 Revised: October 21, 2025 Accepted: November 10, 2025  \nCorresponding author: Ji Soo Choi, MD, PhD, Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea  \n• E-mail: [jisoo.choi@samsung.com](jisoo.choi@samsung.com)  \nThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution N","cbCait0USfsaS2nP","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCait0USfsaS2nP","pdf",1726076,"English","# Objective\n# Materials and Methods\n# Results\n# Conclusion\n# Keywords","[{\"question\":\"What was the study objective regarding ABUS in nondense breasts?\",\"answer\":\"To evaluate how supplemental automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) added to mammography-based screening performs in women with nondense breasts.\"},{\"question\":\"How were outcomes measured in the study?\",\"answer\":\"The primary outcome was the cancer detection rate (CDR), while sensitivity and specificity were treated as secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were done by breast density pattern.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the main results compared with mammography alone?\",\"answer\":\"ABUS plus DM showed higher CDR and sensitivity but lower specificity than DM alone. Benefits were mainly observed in women with scattered fibroglandular density, and some cancers were detected only by ABUS.\"}]","Screening Outcomes of Supplemental Automated Breast Ultrasound in Women With Nondense Breasts Undergoing Mammography | PDF",1790060604,33]