text_1: Finding cancer that mammograms can miss
text_2: "The focus of this story was a review of a newly-published study demonstrating added benefit of ultrasound in addition to mammography for women at increased risk of cancer due to dense breast tissue. The story appropriately mentions why traditional screening methods may miss an early-stage tumor in this population. It is not the usual standard to do any other screening (aside from mammogram) in women with dense breast tissue situations, except for very high-risk BRCA carriers who now get MRI as well. Ultrasound is already available, as implied in the story, and not a new method of treatment. The broadcast does not mention that physicians and ultrasonographers in the study were trained using standardized screening protocols. In a real-world clinical setting, the availability of properly training physicians and technicians can vary, resulting in greater false-negatives or false-positives. The editorial by Dr. Kulk accompanying the JAMA source article states, ""It is questionable whether the diagnostic accuracy achieved in the study..would have been the same if nonradiologists had performed screening ultrasound."" The story could have mentioned this. In addition, the story didn’t discuss costs, didn’t explain why this study was ""the most definitive so far,"" and didn’t explain benefits in absolute terms which are probably most helpful to most viewers. Importantly, the story mentions that screening may need to be tailored to a woman’s individual risk profile, as well as her preferred screening schedule based on an assessment of risks and benefits."