| CBBCT vs mammography (Yang et al., 2024) | CBBCT sensitivity 0.92 and specificity 0.79 vs mammography sensitivity 0.77 and specificity 0.75; AUC CBBCT 0.93 vs MG 0.83, but limited sample sizes and heterogeneity — further large prospective studies needed |
| Komolafe et al. (2022) | Systematic review found DBT had improved diagnostic performance over CBBCT; CBBCT data limited and underrepresented — more prospective studies recommended |
| Uhlig (2019) systematic review/meta-analysis | Pooled CE-CBBCT sensitivity ~0.899 and specificity ~0.788; NC-CBBCT lower and high heterogeneity — encouraging but requires larger validation studies |
| Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) studies (multiple, e.g., Patel 2022; Siegmann 2010) | MRE can quantify tissue stiffness and may improve MRI diagnostic accuracy (increased diagnostic performance when combined with MRI) and associate stiffness with risk in dense breasts; evidence limited and larger studies needed |
| Computer-Aided Tactile Breast Imaging (Tasoulis et al., 2014 and reviews) | Very low-quality evidence: higher sensitivity but much lower specificity versus clinical breast exam; uncontrolled studies with bias — insufficient to determine impact on outcomes |
| Molecular Breast Imaging / BSGI (systematic reviews/meta-analyses: De Feo 2022; Guo 2016; meta-analyses) | Limited literature shows relatively high sensitivity and specificity (similar to MRI in some reviews) but higher radiation burden and insufficient evidence to support routine screening; larger high-quality studies needed |
| SNMMI/EANM Practice Guideline (2022) | States MBI useful for detecting mammographically-occult cancers in women with dense breasts and in elevated-risk women who cannot undergo MRI |
| ACR practice parameters / appropriateness statements (2017; updates 2023/2024) | ACR recommends MRI (including abbreviated MRI) for high-risk women regardless of density; practice parameter notes insufficient evidence and recommends against BSGI/MBI for routine screening due to radiation |
| NCCN Guidelines (2021, 2024) | Acknowledges supplemental MRI/MBI/CEM/ultrasound can increase cancer detection but may increase recalls/benign biopsies; does not support routine molecular imaging for population screening but considers MBI/CEM when MRI not possible |
| USPSTF 2024 | Concludes evidence insufficient to determine balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening with ultrasound or MRI after a negative mammogram regardless of breast density |
| ACOG (2020) | Does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests in asymptomatic women with dense breasts and no additional risk factors; supports further research |
| EUSOBI (2022) | Recommends informing women of breast density and offers screening breast MRI every 2–4 years for women 50–70 with extremely dense breasts, citing potential mortality reduction |
| SBI/ACR (2010) ultrasound guidance | Ultrasound can be considered as adjunct for dense breasts and for high-risk women who cannot undergo MRI |
| SNMMI (2010) & SNMMI/EANM (2022) | SNMMI earlier called for more study of BSGI; 2022 guideline supports MBI utility in certain dense/elevated-risk populations unable to have MRI |
| Evidence summaries in policy (overall) | Policy concludes mammography remains standard; several novel modalities (CT breast, MRE, tactile imaging, MBI/BSGI, PEM) have limited/insufficient evidence for routine screening use |
| Policy coding/definitions and device notes | Definitions note BSGI/MBI, PEM, tactile imaging, and MRE descriptions; codes exist but these modalities are listed as unproven/not medically necessary when criteria unmet |