UNLABELLED: EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with "limited evidence". Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40-45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged. KEY POINTS: • EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography. • A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50-69 years. • Extension to 73-75 and from 40-45 to 49 years is also encouraged. • Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used. • DBT is set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future.

Breast Imaging Unit Scientific Institute Ospedale San Raffaele Via Olgettina 60 20132 Milan Italy

Clinic of Radiology Alexander Dubček University of Trenčín in Trenčín Faculty of Healthcare Študentská 2 911 50 Trenčín Slovakia

Clinic of Radiology Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin 10117 Berlin Germany

Clinic of Radiology University Clinical Center Sarajevo Bolnička 25 71000 Sarajevo Bosnia and Herzegovina

Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image guided Therapy Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging Medical University of Vienna Vienna General Hospital Währinger Gürtel 18 20 1090 Wien Austria

Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health University of Milan Milan Italy

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology University Hospital 'Dubrava' University of Zagreb School of Medicine Avenija Gojka Šuška 6 10000 Zagreb Croatia

Department of Diagnostic Radiology Oulu University Hospital Kajaanintie 50 90220 Oulu Finland

Department of Imaging University Medical Centre Utrecht Heidelberglaan 100 3584 CX Utrecht The Netherlands

Department of Radiological Oncological and Pathological Sciences Sapienza University Viale Regina Elena 324 00161 Rome Italy

Department of Radiology Acibadem University Maslak Hospital Buyukdere cd Maslak Sariyer 34457 İstanbul Turkey

Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging State University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Nicolae Testemitanu' bul St cel Mare 165 Chisinau MD 2012 Moldova

Department of Radiology Breast Imaging Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Rua Professor Lima Basto 1099 023 Lisboa Portugal

Department of Radiology Charles University Prague 1st Faculty of Medicine U Nemocnice 2 128 08 Praha 2 Czech Republic

Department of Radiology Gustave Roussy Institute 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant 94800 Villejuif France

Department of Radiology Haukeland University Hospital Jonas Lies vei 65 5021 Bergen Norway

Department of Radiology Hôpital Lapeyronie 371 Av du Doyen Gaston Giraud 34295 Montpellier France

Department of Radiology Hospital de la Ribera Carretera de Corbera Km 1 46600 Alzira Valencia Spain

Department of Radiology ImageRive Rue de Rive 1 1204 Genève Switzerland

Department of Radiology Karolinska University Hospital Karolinska vägen 171 76 Solna Stockholm Sweden

Department of Radiology Landspitali University Hospital 108 Reykjavik Iceland

Department of Radiology Maria Sklodowska Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology Cracow Branch Cracow Poland

Department of Radiology Mater Misericordiae University Hospital BreastCheck BreastCheck 36 Eccles St Dublin 7 Ireland

Department of Radiology Meander Medical Center Maatweg 3 3813 Amersfoort The Netherlands

Department of Radiology Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10 6525 GA Nijmegen The Netherlands

Department of Radiology Reina Sofía Hospital Avda Menéndez Pidal s n 14004 Córdoba Spain

Department of Radiology Research Hospital Policlinico San Donato Via Morandi 30 20097 San Donato Milanese Milan Italy

Department of Radiology Rigshospitalet Blegdamsvej and Glostrup Mammography Screening Programme in Capital Region Blegdamsvej 9 2100 Copenhagen Denmark

Department of Radiology University of Cambridge Cambridge Biomedical Campus Hills Road CB2 0QQ Cambridge UK

Diagnoscan SZTE Radiológiai Klinika Szeged Semmelweis u 6 6725 Szeged Hungary

Diagnostic Department of Radiology Tokuda Hospital Sofia 1407 Sofia 51B N Vaptsarov Blvd Bulgaria

Diagnostic Imaging Center Institute of Oncology Institutski put 4 21204 Sremska Kamenica Serbia

Diagnostic Mammography Center Kifisias 362 Chalandri 15233 Athens Greece

Division of General Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University Graz Auenbruggerplatz 9 8036 Graz Austria

Duna Medical Center Lechner Ödön fasor 7 1095 Budapest Hungary

Dundee Cancer Centre Clinical Research Centre Ninewells Hospital and Medical School Tom McDonald Avenue Dundee UK

Genitourinary Radiology Ghent University Hospital De Pintelaan 185 9000 Gent Belgium

Institute of Radiology ACC Steyr Stadtplatz 30 4400 Steyr Austria

Italian Group for Mammographic Screening ; Senology Unit Local Health Authority Bologna Italy

Klinik für Radiologie Neuroradiologie and Nuklearmedizin Klinikum Frankfurt Hoechst Frankfurt Germany

Marlene Greenebaum Diagnostic Breast Center Department of Radiology Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center 91120 Jerusalem Israel

Nottingham Breast Institute Nottingham University Hospitals Hucknall Rd Nottingham NG5 1PB United Kingdom

Radiology Centre North Estonia Medical Centre 19 Sütiste Street 13419 Tallinn Estonia

Radiology Department National Cancer Institute Santariskiu 1 Vilnius University Vilnius Lithuania

Radiology Unit Hospices Civils de Lyon Centre Hospitalo Universitaire Lyon Sud 165 Chemin du Grand Revoyet 69495 Pierre Bénite Cedex France

Radiotherapy 1 The Oncology Institute 'Prof Dr Ion Chiricuta' Cluj Napoca 34 36 Republicii Street RO 400015 Romania

Referenzzentrum Mammographie Munchen Sonnenstraße 29 80331 Munich Germany

U O Radiodiagnostica Candiolo Cancer Institute FPO IRCCS Str Prov 142 km 3 95 10060 Candiolo Turin Italy

University Hospital of Aachen Rheinisch Westfälische Technische Hochschule Pauwelsstraße 30 52074 Aachen Germany

See more in PubMed

Globocan Online Analysis (http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/burden_sel.aspx, accessed on June 3, 2016)

Sardanelli F, Helbich TH, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) Mammography: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Insights Imaging. 2012;3(1):7–10. doi: 10.1007/s13244-011-0127-y. PubMed DOI PMC

Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM. Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ. 2015;351:h4901. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4901. PubMed DOI PMC

Lauby-Secretan B. Scoccianti C, Loomis D, International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group et al. Breast Cancer Screening – Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(24):2353–2358. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1504363. PubMed DOI

Hofvind S, Sørum R, Thoresen S. Incidence and tumor characteristics of breast cancer diagnosed before and after implementation of a population-based screening-program. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(2):225–231. doi: 10.1080/02841860701518041. PubMed DOI

Cutuli B, Dalenc F, Cottu PH, et al. Impact of screening on clinicopathological features and treatment for invasive breast cancer: results of two national surveys. Cancer Radiother. 2015;19(5):295–302. doi: 10.1016/j.canrad.2015.02.015. PubMed DOI

Dong W, Berry DA, Bevers TB, et al. Prognostic role of detection method and its relationship with tumor biomarkers in breast cancer: the university of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark. 2008;17(5):1096–1103. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0201. PubMed DOI PMC

Nagtegaal ID, Allgood PC, Duffy SW, et al. Prognosis and pathology of screen-detected carcinomas: how different are they? Cancer. 2011;117(7):1360–1368. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25613. PubMed DOI

Paci E, EUROSCREEN Working Group Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen. 2012;19(Suppl 1):5–13. doi: 10.1258/jms.2012.012077. PubMed DOI

Colin C, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Sardanelli F. Is breast cancer overdiagnosis also nested in pathologic misclassification? Radiology. 2014;273(3):652–655. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14141116. PubMed DOI

Hauge IH, Pedersen K, Olerud HM, Hole EO, Hofvind S. The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal. Acta Radiol. 2014;55(10):1174–1179. doi: 10.1177/0284185113514051. PubMed DOI

Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258(1):98–105. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10100655. PubMed DOI

Brkljacić B, Miletić D, Sardanelli F. Thermography is not a feasible method for breast cancer screening. Coll Antropol. 2013;37(2):589–593. PubMed

Kemp Jacobsen K, Abraham L, Buist DS, et al. Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39(4):656–663. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.05.004. PubMed DOI PMC

Kemp Jacobsen K, O'Meara ES, Key D, et al. Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(9):2198–2207. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29593. PubMed DOI PMC

Society of Breast Imaging. https://www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/Position%20Statements/2016/SBI%20ACR%20Response%20to%20 USPSTF%20Recommendations.pdf. Accessed on February 8, 2016

Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–1614. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12783. PubMed DOI PMC

Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. RadioGraphics. 2015;35(2):302–315. doi: 10.1148/rg.352140106. PubMed DOI

Colin C, Prince V, Valette PJ. Can mammographic assessments lead to consider density as a risk factor for breast cancer? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(3):404–411. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.01.001. PubMed DOI

Colin C, Schott AM, Valette PJ. Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2412–2416. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3278-7. PubMed DOI

Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh AP, et al. Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: Implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology. 2016;279(3):710–719. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015151261. PubMed DOI PMC

McCormack VA, dos Santos SI. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(6):1159–1169. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034. PubMed DOI

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121373. PubMed DOI

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2061–2071. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2820-3. PubMed DOI PMC

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–589. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7. PubMed DOI

Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(1):184–190. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3. PubMed DOI PMC

Houssami N. Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(4):377–379. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2015.1028362. PubMed DOI

Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full field digital mammography. Breast. 2015;24(2):93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002. PubMed DOI PMC

Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (TM) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(2):166–171. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.003. PubMed DOI PMC

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, et al. Two-view Digital Breast Tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projections images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):655–663. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131391. PubMed DOI

McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2(6):737-743 PubMed

Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(2):141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008. PubMed DOI

van Breest SV, Nederend J, Voogd AC, et al. Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(1):242–248. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.253. PubMed DOI PMC

Castellano I, Deambrogio C, Muscarà F, et al. Efficiency of a preoperative axillary ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration cytology to detect patients with extensive axillary lymph node involvement. PLoS One. 2014;9(9) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106640. PubMed DOI PMC

Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75. PubMed DOI

Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(8):1296–1316. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015. PubMed DOI

Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition et al. Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(12):3669–3678. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3807-z. PubMed DOI PMC