Background Screening mammography has lower sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts, who experience higher breast cancer risk. Purpose Systematic review of: reproducibility of BI-RADS density categorization; test performance and clinical outcomes of supplemental screening with breast ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts and negative mammography. Data Sources MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane January 2000–July 2015. Study Selection Studies reporting BI-RADS density reproducibility or supplemental screening results for women with dense breasts. Data Extraction Quality assessment and abstraction of twenty-four studies from seven countries; six were good quality. Data Synthesis Three good-quality studies reported reproducibility of BI-RADS density; 13–19% of women were re-categorized between “dense” and “non-dense” at subsequent screening. Two good-quality studies reported ultrasound sensitivity for women with negative mammography ranging from 80–83%; specificity 86–94%; and positive predictive value (PPV) 3–8%. MRI sensitivity ranged from 75–100%, specificity 78–94%, and PPV 3–33% (3 studies). Ultrasound additional cancer detection rates were 4.4 per 1,000 exams (89–93% invasive); recall rates were 14%. MRI detected 3.5–28.6 additional cancers per 1,000 exams (34–86% invasive); recall rates were 12–24 %. DBT cancer detection rates increased by 1.4–2.5 per 1000 exams compared to mammography alone (3 studies). Recall rates ranged from 7–11%, compared to 7–17% with mammography alone. No studies examined breast cancer outcomes. Limitations Good quality evidence was sparse. Studies were small and confidence intervals were wide. Definitions of recall were absent or inconsistent. Conclusions Density ratings may be re-categorized on serial screening mammograms. Supplemental screening of women with dense breasts finds additional breast cancers, but increases false-positives. DBT may reduce recall rates. Supplemental screening impacts on breast cancer outcomes remain unclear. Primary Funding Source Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

No abstract

PSA screening may reduce prostate cancer mortality risk but is associated with false-positive results, biopsy complications, and overdiagnosis. Compared with conservative approaches, active treatments for screen-detected prostate cancer have unclear effects on long-term survival but are associated with sexual and urinary difficulties.

Primary hrHPV screening detected higher rates of CIN 3+ at first-round screening compared with cytology. Cotesting trials did not show initial increased CIN 3+ detection. Both hrHPV screening strategies had higher false-positive and colposcopy rates than cytology, which could lead to more treatments with potential harms.