Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33507222›Full record

ReviewJAMA oncology2021

Individualizing Surveillance Mammography for Older Patients After Treatment for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and International Society of Geriatric Oncology Consensus Statement.

Rachel A Freedman, Christina A Minami, Eric P Winer, Monica Morrow, Alexander K Smith, Louise C Walter, Mina S Sedrak, Haley Gagnon, Adriana Perilla-Glen, Hans Wildiers and 15 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Synthesis of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for breast cancer survivorship care: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Surveillance mammography in older women-should we press on?Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026
    Article
  5. Diagnostic yield of surveillance mammography among older women.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026
    Article
  6. Breast cancer diagnosis at age 85 and older.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 16 institutions in 3 countries.

Rachel A FreedmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Christina A MinamiDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eric P WinerDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Monica MorrowDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Alexander K SmithDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.
Louise C WalterDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.
Mina S SedrakDepartment of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California.
Haley GagnonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Adriana Perilla-GlenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Hans WildiersDepartment of General Medical Oncology and Multidisciplinary Breast Center, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Tanya M WildesDivision of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Stuart M LichtmanMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Commack, New York.
Kah Poh LohJames P. Wilmot Cancer Institute, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York.
Etienne G C BrainDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France.
Pamela S GanschowDepartment of Medicine, Rush University Medical College and Cook County Health, Chicago, Illinois.
Kelly K HuntDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Deborah K MayerLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.
Kathryn J RuddyDepartment of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Reshma JagsiCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Nancy U LinDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Beverly CaninCancer and Aging Research Group.
Barbara K LeStageDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Anna C RevetteSurvey and Data Management Core, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mara A SchonbergDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nancy L KeatingDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USHarvard University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USCity of Hope · USCook County Health and Hospitals System · USInstitut Curie · FRKU Leuven · BEMayo Clinic · USSan Francisco VA Health Care System · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Rochester · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

VARC CoreP30AG044281 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI REBECCA L SUDORE · 2013 to 2026
$19.9M
A novel mobile health exercise intervention for older patients with myeloid neoplasmsR00CA237744 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI LOH, KAH POH · 2021 to 2023
$747k
Individualizing surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivorsR21CA227615 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI FREEDMAN, RACHEL ANN · 2019 to 2020
$422k
A Novel Mobile Health Exercise Intervention for Older Patients with Myeloid NeoplasmsK99CA237744 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI LOH, KAH POH · 2019 to 2020
$385k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA237744NCI NIH HHS R00 CA237744NCI NIH HHS R21 CA227615NIA NIH HHS P30 AG044281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThere is currently no guidance on how to approach surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivors, particularly when life expectancy is limited.

objectiveTo develop expert consensus guidelines that facilitate tailored decision-making for routine surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older. EVIDENCE: After a literature review of the risk of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among breast cancer survivors and the harms and benefits associated with mammography, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older. Using an iterative consensus-based approach, input from clinician focus groups, and critical review by the International Society for Geriatric Oncology, the guidelines were refined and finalized.

findingsThe literature review established a low risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events in most older breast cancer survivors and summarized the benefits and harms associated with mammography. Draft mammography guidelines were iteratively evaluated by the expert panel and clinician focus groups, emphasizing a patient's risk for in-breast cancer events, age, life expectancy, and personal preferences. The final consensus guidelines recommend discontinuation of routine mammography for all breast cancer survivors when life expectancy is less than 5 years, including those with a history of high-risk cancers; consideration to discontinue mammography when life expectancy is 5 to 10 years; and continuation of mammography when life expectancy is more than 10 years. Individualized, shared decision-making is encouraged to optimally tailor recommendations after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences. The panel also recommends ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography to evaluate clinical findings and symptoms, with reassurance for patients that these practices will continue. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is anticipated that these expert guidelines will enhance clinical practice by providing a framework for individualized discussions, facilitating shared decision-making regarding surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAgedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMammographyMass ScreeningSurvivors

Identifiers

PMID33507222
PMCPMC8944384
OpenAlexW3125278994

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.