Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

Gen Surg Vivasbreast

Gen Surg Vivas · breast

Dense breasts with a normal mammogram — supplemental MRI, ultrasound, notification and the USPSTF honesty clause

Fellowship viva on dense-breast supplemental screening: DENSE interval halving with false-positive price, abbreviated MRI versus DBT head-to-head, adjunct ultrasound yield, notification systems effects, USPSTF I statement, BI-RADS ladder, and BRCA surveillance contrast.

clinical1 min readVerification in progress

Target exams

FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
On this page
Study tools

Target exams

FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
Prompt
A 58-year-old woman with extremely dense breasts and a normal screening mammogram asks whether she needs more tests. Talk me through density as risk and mask, the DENSE and EA1141 numbers, ultrasound's place, what notification changed, the USPSTF position, how you read her next BI-RADS report, and what you would do differently were she a BRCA carrier.

Write your answer

Saved on this device. No marking — you are the marker.

Examiner prompts with model answers

Density first — risk and mask. Dense tissue is an independent risk factor and it lowers mammographic sensitivity — the two-word reason her normal mammogram reassures less than average.[24]

DENSE — the numbers you must carry. In 40,373 Dutch women with extremely dense breasts, MRI invitation cut interval cancers from 5.0 to 2.5 per 1000; 59% accepted, detection ran 16.5 per 1000 in scanned women, false positives 79.8 per 1000, predictive value 17.4% for recall and 26.3% for biopsy. Offer with both halves quoted.[21]

Abbreviated MRI versus DBT — the head-to-head. EA1141 in dense breasts: invasive detection 11.8 versus 4.8 per 1000, sensitivity 95.7 versus 39.1%, specificity 86.7 versus 97.4%. MRI is the most sensitive test she can buy and the least specific — consent the recalls, not just the cancers.[22]

Ultrasound's fenced role. Adjunct ultrasound improves detection of small node-negative invasive cancers, from Connecticut 2009 to the 2019 federal mandate — operator-dependent, biopsy-generating, and a complement rather than a competitor to MRI.[23]

What notification changed. US density laws lifted supplemental screening use by 0.5 to 143%, biopsy rates by up to 4% and detection by up to 11% — a systems effect: expect busier assessment clinics wherever notification lands.[24]

The USPSTF honesty clause. Despite DENSE, the Task Force calls supplemental ultrasound or MRI evidence insufficient after a negative mammogram in dense breasts — interval cancers are not mortality, and saying so is the distinction-marker answer.[2]

Reading her next report. Walk the BI-RADS ladder: 0 recalls, 1 to 2 routine, 3 surveillance, 4 (4A 7.6, 4B 22, 4C 69.3%) biopsies, 5 plans surgery, 6 stages known cancer — and benign core against 4C or 5 imaging means re-biopsy, never reassurance.[27]

Were she a BRCA carrier — different pathway entirely. Pre-surgery surveillance is overwhelmingly MRI from age 18 to 30 with 6-to-12-monthly examination across 22 centres in 16 countries — earlier, more intensive, and guideline-owned, not extrapolated from DENSE.[45]

References7ShowHide
  1. [21]Bakker MF, et al. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. N Engl J Med, 2019.PMID 31774954
  2. [22]Comstock CE, et al. Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening. JAMA, 2020.PMID 32096852
  3. [24]Huang S, et al. The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2021.PMID 33774734
  4. [2]Nicholson WK, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA, 2024.PMID 38687503
  5. [27]Elezaby M, et al. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database. Radiology, 2018.PMID 29315061
  6. [45]Madorsky-Feldman D, et al. An international survey of surveillance schemes for unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2016.PMID 27117159
  7. [23]Butler RS, et al. Screening Breast Ultrasound: Update After 10 Years of Breast Density Notification Laws. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2020.PMID 32182096
PreviousBreast reconstruction choice — options, timing under radiotherapy, implant versus DIEP trade-offs, nipple safety and BREAST-QbreastNextGynaecomastia triage — pubertal reassurance, adult cause hunt, selective imaging and persistent-disease surgerybreast