SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2026
Radiology Surveillance for Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is a prevalent malignancy worldwide, with a growing number of survivors requiring post-treatment surveillance to improve outcomes. Radiologic surveillance, particularly mammography, is essential for early detection, however, there are disparities in the accuracy and effectiveness of various imaging modalities.
objectivesThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiology surveillance techniques for breast cancer survivors, focusing on diagnostic accuracy and mortality reduction.
methodsStudies assessing radiologic surveillance (e.g. mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and digital breast tomosynthesis) were included in this review. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus databases. To obtain pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and mortality, we extracted and synthesized data using a random-effects model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and QUADAS-2 instruments were used to assess the risk of bias.
resultsA total of eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria for the review, of which eight were included in the meta-analysis (three for diagnostic accuracy and five for mortality. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of mammographic surveillance were 81% (95% CI 0.63-0.91), 71% (95% CI 0.31-0.93), and 76% (95% CI 0.59-0.88). A 50% reduction in mortality risk was linked to mammographic surveillance (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.27-0.92). Heterogeneity was substantial for mortality analysis (I2=93%), while there was a low heterogeneity for the sensitivity analysis (I2=16%). MRI showed better sensitivity (91%) and specificity (82%) than ultrasonography and mammography.
conclusionAlthough mammographic surveillance has a lower diagnostic accuracy than that observed in the screening population, it considerably lowers mortality among breast cancer survivors. The use of adjunct imaging modalities, such as MRI, may enhance early detection. Standardized surveillance protocols and further research on imaging strategies in diverse populations are required to improve post-treatment monitoring and patient outcomes.
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.