Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30411278›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2018

Breast imaging surveillance after curative treatment for primary non-metastasised breast cancer in non-high-risk women: a systematic review.

Jeroen Swinnen, Machteld Keupers, Julie Soens, Matthias Lavens, Sandra Postema, Chantal Van Ongeval

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Fat necrosis: A consultant's conundrum.Frontiers in oncology · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jeroen SwinnenDepartment of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium.
Machteld KeupersDepartment of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium.
Julie SoensDepartment of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium.
Matthias LavensDepartment of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium.
Sandra PostemaDepartment of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium.
Chantal Van OngevalDepartment of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium. chantal.vanongeval@uzleuven.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe article summarises the available guidelines on breast imaging surveillance after curative treatment for locoregional breast cancer.

methodsA systematic review of practice guidelines published from 1 January 2007 to 1 January 2017 was performed according to PRISMA methodology. The search was conducted for the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. On 8 July 2018, all included guidelines were updated to the most recent version.

resultsTwenty-one guidelines originating from 18 publishing bodies matched criteria. Publishing bodies consisted of seven governmental institutions, nine medical societies and two mixed collaborations. Publishing boards consisted of six radiological, four oncological, and 11 multidisciplinary teams. Annual bilateral mammography surveillance after breast-conserving therapy was recommended by 17/18 (94.4%) publishing bodies. Annual contralateral mammography surveillance after mastectomy was recommended by 13/18 (72.2%) publishing bodies. Routine use of digital breast tomosynthesis was recommended by 1/18 (5.6%) publishing bodies. Routine breast ultrasound surveillance was recommended by 2/18 (11.1%), deemed optional by 4/18 (22.2%) and not supported by 8/18 (44.4%) publishing bodies. Routine breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance was not recommended by 16/18 (88.9%) publishing bodies, although 6/18 (33.3%) specified subgroups for systematic MRI surveillance.

conclusionsAnnual mammography is currently the 'gold standard' for breast imaging surveillance. The role of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) remains to be further investigated. Most guidelines do not recommend routine breast ultrasound or MRI surveillance, unless indicated by additional risk factors.

Indexed as

AftercareBreast neoplasmsPractice guidelines as topicRecurrenceReview

Identifiers

PMID30411278
PMCPMC6269345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.