ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Dual-modality breast cancer screening compared to MRI or mammography alone among female Hodgkin lymphoma survivors who received chest radiotherapy.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFemale Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors treated with chest radiotherapy (RT) before the age of 40 years face increased breast cancer (BC) risk. Dutch guidelines recommend annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography at ages 30-60 years starting eight years after RT. Dual-modality screening is burdensome and may increase false positive rates. We therefore compared the diagnostic value of each individual modality with MRI and mammography combined.
methodsResults of dual-modality BC screenings performed in 2005-2021 at two Dutch survivorship clinics were used to estimate sensitivity and specificity for each modality and MRI and mammography combined.
resultsWe retrospectively reviewed 550 screening rounds in 134 HL survivors (median follow-up: 3 years) during which 19 early-stage tumors occurred. Sensitivity was 79% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 54-94) for MRI alone, 63% (95% CI: 38-84) for mammography alone and 95% (95% CI: 74-100) for both modalities combined. Specificity was 89% (95% CI: 86-91) for MRI alone, 97% (95% CI: 95-98) for mammography alone and 86% (95% CI: 83-89) when combining modalities. Additional ultrasound was performed in 15.3% of screening rounds (in 74.4% due to MRI findings) and puncture/biopsy in 8.0%.
conclusionsIn conclusion, to obtain a sufficiently high screening sensitivity in female HL survivors treated with chest RT, we recommend screening with both MRI and mammography. However, MRI is associated with a high false positive rate. Our findings inform survivors and clinicians about effectiveness of BC screening and its burden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41604023What 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.