Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42116552›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026

Mammographic surveillance in breast cancer patients aged 50 years or older: a synopsis of the Mammo-50 RCT.

Janet Dunn, Peter Donnelly, Andrea Marshall, Nada Elbeltagi, Amy Hopkins, Maria Ramirez, Alastair Thompson, Riccardo Audisio, Sarah Pinder, David Cameron and 12 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

22 authors.

Janet DunnWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7313-4446
Peter DonnellyTorbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, Torquay, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7526-1537
Andrea MarshallWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6610-5812
Nada ElbeltagiWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1084-7099
Amy HopkinsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-6821-7543
Maria RamirezWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0009-0009-4714-7767
Alastair ThompsonBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0604-7267
Riccardo AudisioDepartment of Surgery, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7538-4809
Sarah PinderSchool of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London/Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4167-8910
David CameronThe University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2717-7979
Sue HartupSt James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8852-7872
Maggie WilcoxIndependent Cancer Patients' Voice, London, UK.
Lesley TurnerIndependent Cancer Patients' Voice, London, UK.
Annie YoungWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6611-6653
Helen HigginsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7095-4542
Eila WatsonOxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3592-1315
Sophie GassonWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4648-5229
Peter Barrett-LeeVelindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6246-7357
Claire HulmeUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2077-0419
Bethany ShinkinsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5350-1018
Peter HallThe University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6015-7841
Andrew EvansBreast Unit, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3320-0215

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Annual surveillance mammograms for an unspecified period, after treatment for early breast cancer, are widely practised in the United States of America and Europe. Current UK guidelines recommend annual mammograms for 5 years, then reverts to 3-yearly screening. The aim of this trial was to evaluate whether less than annual mammography was non-inferior in terms of breast cancer-specific survival and cost-effectiveness in women aged 50 years or older at diagnosis and 3 years post curative surgery. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, randomised phase III trial of annual mammography versus less-frequent mammography (2-yearly after conservation surgery or 3-yearly after mastectomy). Women were eligible if aged ≥ 50 years at initial diagnosis of breast cancer (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ) and recurrence-free 3 years post curative surgery. The trial was conducted at 114 NHS hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to annual or less-frequent mammograms; followed up for 6 years. Coprimary outcomes were breast cancer-specific-survival and cost-effectiveness; secondary outcomes included recurrence-free interval and overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat, with a pre-planned per-protocol analysis. Planned sample size was 5000. Clinical results are now reported. Results: Five thousand two hundred and thirty-five women were randomised between April 2014 and September 2018. With a median of 5.7-year follow-up, 343 women have died, of whom 116 died of breast cancer (61 on annual arm; 55 on less-frequent arm). Breast cancer-specific-survival at 5 years was 98% on both arms with a hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.32), which demonstrated non-inferiority of less-frequent mammograms at the 3% margin (non-inferiority Conclusion: For patients aged ≥ 50 years and 3 years post diagnosis, less-frequent mammograms were non-inferior and cost-effective compared with annual mammograms, with no detriment to patients' quality of life. Mammo-50 provides evidence to inform guideline development. Limitations: Adherence to the mammographic schedules was 76%, though the per-protocol analysis showed no difference compared to the intention to treat results. The majority of the participants had small lower-grade oestrogen receptor-positive tumours and were from a White ethnic group. Future work: More research is needed for women with ductal carcinoma in situ; women aged under 50 years old at diagnosis and different ethnic groups, especially those women of Black ethnicity who tend to present younger. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 11/25/03.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited KingdomEARLY BREAST CANCERMAMMOGRAPHIC SURVEILLANCEWOMEN 50 YEARS OR OLDER

Identifiers

PMID42116552
PMCPMC13200029

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.