ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Evaluating double-reading mammography for long-term surveillance in breast cancer survivors: a retrospective exploratory analysis from a single center.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis exploratory analysis aims to assess the clinical feasibility of transitioning breast cancer (BC) survivors from intensive follow-up to a long-term surveillance strategy based on double-reading mammography within a population-based screening model. MATERIAL AND
methodsWomen who underwent BC surgery in 2013 and were followed for 10 years at a tertiary cancer center in Italy were retrospectively included. Recurrence rates and time to relapse were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Chi-square test. Available follow-up mammograms were independently reviewed by three experienced radiologists, blinded to clinical information, using a positive/negative binary scale. Pathology served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and inter-reader agreement (Cohen's and Fleiss' κ) were calculated. Simulated double reading was analyzed using McNemar's test. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsAmong 505 women, 46 (9.1%) experienced BC recurrence: 19/271 (7.0%) in Luminal A, 6/84 (7.1%) in Luminal B, 3/28 (10.7%) in triple-negative (TN), 7/57 (12.3%) in HER2-positive (HER2 +) cancers, and 11/65 (16.9%) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which showed the highest recurrence rate (p = 0.0024). Median time to relapse ranged from 4.7 years (TN) to 8.1 years (Luminal A), with no statistically significant difference among the subtypes (p = 0.190). Individual reader sensitivity ranged from 67.7 to 74.2%, increasing to 77.4-83.9% with double reading. PPVs ranged from 95.4 to 100% for single reading and from 96.0% to 96.2% for double reading. Differences in sensitivity and PPV between single and double reading were not statistically significant (p = 1.0). Five recurrences (16.1%) were mammographically occult and clinically detected. Inter-reader agreement was moderate to good (Cohen's κ = 0.38-0.69; Fleiss' κ = 0.57).
conclusionsDouble-reading mammography showed a higher detection rate of BC recurrences compared to single reading in this exploratory setting, suggesting its potential role as a long-term surveillance strategy for BC survivors. However, the occurrence of relapses outside the mammographic field of view warrants careful consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.