Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to ‘Comment on ‘Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis”

British Journal of Cancer volume 119, page 1444 (2018)Cite this article

Sir,

Zhu et al.1 express concern about the strength of the conclusions we drew in our meta-analysis assessing the effect of adding ultrasound to mammography in breast screening.2 Below, we have addressed the three issues that they raised.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Zhu, M., Li, M., Liu, J., & Lu, B. Comment on “Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis”. Br. J. Cancer, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0237-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rebolj, M., Assi, V., Brentnall, A., Parmar, D. & Duffy, S. W. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Cancer 118, 1559–1570 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

S.D. contributed to this as part of the programme of the Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis, which receives funding for a research programme from the Department of Health Policy Research Programme. It is a collaboration between researchers from seven institutions (Queen Mary University of London, UCL, King’s College London, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Hull York Medical School, Newcastle University and Peninsula Medical School). M.R. and A.B. were supported by Cancer Research UK (Grants C8162/A16892 and C569/A16891, respectively).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK

    Matejka Rebolj, Adam Brentnall & Stephen W. Duffy

Authors
  1. Matejka Rebolj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Brentnall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen W. Duffy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to drafting the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen W. Duffy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Availability of data and material

The study was based entirely on previously published data.

Note

This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rebolj, M., Brentnall, A. & Duffy, S.W. Reply to ‘Comment on ‘Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis”. Br J Cancer 119, 1444 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0247-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0247-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links