Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40813505›Full record

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.

Elisabetta Giannotti, Marcella Pasculli, Tamar Sella, Chantal Van Ongeval, Magda Marcon, Mihai Lesaru, Julia Camps-Herrero, Ritse M Mann, Federica Pediconi, EUSOBI

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Elisabetta GiannottiCambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6924-9822
Marcella PasculliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza-University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Tamar SellaDepartment of Radiology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Chantal Van OngevalDepartment of Radiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Magda MarconInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Mihai LesaruDepartment of Radiology, Imaging and Interventional Radiology Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
Julia Camps-HerreroRibera Salud Hospitals, Valencia, Spain.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Federica PediconiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza-University of Rome, Rome, Italy. federica.pediconi@uniroma1.it.
EUSOBI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyEarly Detection of CancerEuropeFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrecision MedicineSocieties, MedicalBreast neoplasmDiagnostic imagingMagnetic resonance imagingMammographyNeoplasm recurrence (local)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.