ReviewEuropean radiology2026
ESR Essentials: post-treatment breast cancer surveillance from mammography to a more personalised approach-practice recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging.
Review in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Integrating single-cell and spatial transcriptomics to decipher the neuro-immune microenvironment of breast cancer brain metastasis: a key regulatory axis, prognostic model, and drug discovery.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Personalized Breast Reconstruction After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Risk-Informed Approaches to Technique Selection and Timing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Multicenter Assessment of Postoperative MastocheckCancers · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The breast cancer long-term survival rate has improved; early detection of local recurrence and second primary cancers has been crucial to this success. Mammography is the standard imaging technique for follow-up, but its sensitivity is affected by breast density and post-treatment changes. This article discusses the role of mammography in the follow-up of women after breast cancer treatment, and the use of additional imaging techniques. For patients with genetic mutations or a risk of breast cancer above 20%, high-risk screening protocols are necessary. Non-genetic mutation carriers may require supplemental imaging. Contrast imaging should be offered to women with dense breasts and a young age at diagnosis. While MRI remains the most sensitive tool, it has limitations, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) emerges as a more affordable alternative. Current standards dictate the use of post-operative mammography annual surveillance for at least 5 years. As surveillance strategies evolve, the importance of personalised follow-up based on individual risk factors is emphasised. In fact, there is a need to optimise surveillance protocols and ensure equitable access to appropriate imaging methods for all breast cancer survivors. These recommendations can be implemented into practice by evaluating individual risk factors and engaging patients in shared decision-making. KEY POINTS: Adequate knowledge of normal post-surgical changes of the breast is crucial for avoiding unnecessary work-up. Five-year annual two-view mammography is the standard test for surveillance follow-up. Surveillance follow-up should move beyond a "one size fits all" to a more personalised approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40813505What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.