English | EN 
Early detection saves lives, but no single imaging test fits every patient or every tumor. Breast imaging balances sensitivity (how often cancers are found), specificity (how often healthy people aren’t flagged), access, comfort, cost, and safety. Below is a clear, side‑by‑side comparison of four key modalities used today—X‑ray mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and the emerging microwave imaging—so you can see where each shines and where the trade‑offs lie.
Note: Ranges reflect typical values from large reviews and health technology assessments; individual results vary by equipment, protocol, reader expertise, and patient factors like age and breast density. See sources at the end.
Breast Imaging Modalities at a Glance
X-ray Mammography (2D / DBT)
What it is: Low-dose X-rays create 2D images; DBT sweeps for layered “3D-like” views.
Pros: Proven mortality reduction; fast; widely available; DBT reduces recall rates.
Cons: Low-dose radiation; compression discomfort; less effective in dense breasts; risk of false positives.
Performance: Sensitivity 77–95% (fatty) vs 60–75% (dense); Specificity 85–95%. DBT adds 1–3 cancers per 1,000 and lowers recalls by 15–30%.
Patient experience: 10–15 min; breast compression required.
Access & cost: Broad availability; relatively low cost.
Best suited for: Population screening backbone; first-line test.
________________________________________
Ultrasound (US / ABUS)
What it is: Sound waves create real-time images; handheld or automated (ABUS).
Pros: No radiation; works well in dense tissue; guides biopsy; comfortable.
Cons: Operator dependent; more false positives; smaller field-of-view than MRI.
Performance: Adds 2–4 cancers per 1,000 in dense breasts; increases recalls/benign biopsies; ABUS improves consistency.
Patient experience: 10–20 min; gel on skin; mild or no compression.
Access & cost: Widely available; modest cost.
Best suited for: Adjunct to mammography in dense breasts; diagnostic workup.
________________________________________
MRI (DCE-MRI / Abbreviated MRI)
What it is: Magnetic field + radio waves + IV contrast map tissue enhancement patterns.
Pros: Very high sensitivity; unaffected by density; excellent for high-risk screening and staging.
Cons: High cost; IV contrast; longer scan time; access limited.
Performance: Sensitivity >90% (95–99% in high-risk); Specificity 70–90%; abbreviated MRI ~10 min with similar sensitivity.
Patient experience: 10–40 min; IV contrast; prone positioning.
Access & cost: Limited availability; high cost.
Best suited for: Annual screening in high-risk women; pre-surgical planning.
________________________________________
Microwave Imaging (Emerging)
What it is: Low-power radio waves probe electrical tissue properties.
Pros: No radiation; comfortable; potentially portable and lower cost than MRI.
Cons: Still experimental; small study evidence; resolution limits for <10 mm lesions.
Performance: Sensitivity 60–80% in small studies; better for lesions >10 mm; specificity varies.
Patient experience: 5–15 min; minimal compression; no injections.
Access & cost: Research-stage; potentially low-to-moderate cost.
Best suited for: Future adjunct or triage tool; promising for wider access.
________________________________________
Key takeaways
- Mammography remains the population‑level workhorse with the strongest evidence for mortality reduction, particularly when digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is used.
- Ultrasound adds extra cancer detections in dense breasts but increases recalls; it’s indispensable for targeted diagnostics and biopsy guidance.
- MRI offers top sensitivity and is recommended annually for high‑risk individuals, with abbreviated protocols improving throughput; specificity and cost are the main trade‑offs.
- Microwave imaging is an emerging, non‑ionizing standalone or adjunct with encouraging comfort and access profiles; performance is still being established in larger, standardized studies.
A critical note on dense breasts: About 40–50% of screening‑age women have dense breasts, which can lower mammography sensitivity. Adjunct tools (ultrasound, MRI for high‑risk) improve detection but can raise recall rates. Policies vary by country and are evolving with new evidence.
We’re actively researching non‑ionizing, AI‑assisted approaches that could complement this toolkit in the future. Curious how microwave imaging works and how open datasets (like UMBMID) are accelerating progress? Don’t miss the next article — “Microwaves for good: How non-ionizing imaging and open datasets are shaping the next wave of Breast Screening”— where we unpack the technology, the data, and what’s next.
Sources and further reading
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Breast cancer screening and mortality reduction. https://screening.iarc.fr
- World Health Organization (WHO). Breast cancer: screening and early diagnosis. https://www.who.int/health-topics/breast-cancer
- Melnikow, J. et al. Supplemental screening in dense breasts. Ann Intern Med, 2016. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1789
- Gegios, A. R., Peterson, M. S., Fowler, A. M. Breast Cancer Screening and diagnosis. PET Clinics, 2023. https://www.pet.theclinics.com/article/S1556-8598(23)00035-4/abstract
- Ontario Health (Quality). Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11445669/
- ICNIRP. RF exposure guidelines (100 kHz–300 GHz), 2020. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf