ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2026
Performance and potential impact of the IMACS cancer screening guideline in myositis: analysis in a myositis referral centre.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Progress made and the road ahead for cancer screening in myositis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the performance, direct costs and radiation exposure of the cancer screening strategy proposed by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) at a myositis referral centre compared with real-world cancer screening. Methods: This is a retrospective study involving consecutive patients registered in a single-centre prospective IIM database from 2014 to 2024 who had no cancer within 3 years before IIM diagnosis. The patients were stratified into high, moderate or standard risk of cancer according to the IMACS risk stratification model and cancer events were collected within 3 years following IIM diagnosis. Cancer detection rate, direct costs and radiation exposure associated with the IMACS screening strategy were estimated. Results: We included 183 patients with a median age at IIM onset of 61 years and 66.7% being female. The IMACS risk stratification model classified 75 (41.0%), 100 (54.6%) and 8 (4.4%) patients into high, moderate and standard risk, respectively. We identified 15 (20.0%), 8 (8.0%) and 0 cancer events in each risk group, respectively. The IMACS strategy could have identified 18/22 (81.8%) of the cancer events. Direct costs and radiation exposure associated with the IMACS strategy were estimated to be higher than our real-world practice, especially in the high- and moderate-risk groups. Conclusions: The IMACS IIM-associated cancer risk stratification model and screening strategy showed satisfactory performance in a single-centre IIM cohort, while most patients would be classified into the high- and moderate-risk groups, where enhanced cancer screening is recommended.
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.