2026·Commentary
A wider conversation about breast cancer care
Angus DC; O’Connor MB; Young LJ
JAMA · published online October 22, 2026
An editorial conversation about progress in breast cancer care, screening, access, and prevention. A starting point for the wider screening discussion.
What to keep in mind
Journalistic discussion, not a clinical trial or an evaluation of MammoGRIP.
Citation & reading note
Breast Cancer’s Transformation From Terminal to Manageable: A Healthy Dialogue With Nancy E. Davidson. Angus DC; O’Connor MB; Young LJ. JAMA · published online October 22, 2026. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2026.21078.
Summary based on the available full text.
2024·Guideline
Who should be screened, and when?
US Preventive Services Task Force; Nicholson WK; Silverstein M; et al.
JAMA · 331(22):1918–1930
Recommends mammography every two years for average-risk women aged 40–74, balancing screening benefits and harms.
What to keep in mind
US guidance; other organizations differ on screening intervals. Individual risk and local guidance matter.
Citation & reading note
Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. US Preventive Services Task Force; Nicholson WK; Silverstein M; et al.. JAMA · 331(22):1918–1930. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.5534.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
2002·Observational
Positioning quality and cancer detection
Taplin SH; Rutter CM; Finder C; et al.
AJR · 178(4):797–803
In a retrospective assessment of 656 cancers, sensitivity was 84% with passing positioning versus 66.3% when positioning failed.
What to keep in mind
Association from older screen-film examinations, not proof that a specific positioning product improves detection.
Citation & reading note
Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer. Taplin SH; Rutter CM; Finder C; et al.. AJR · 178(4):797–803. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.178.4.1780797.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
2025·Quality improvement
Improving positioning through a quality program
Arjmandi FK; Munjal H; Hayes JC; et al.
JACR · 22(11):1371–1379
A structured quality-improvement program increased examinations meeting positioning criteria from 45% to 58% overall.
What to keep in mind
Experience from one health system; training and workflow effects cannot be assigned to a single intervention.
Citation & reading note
Mammography Positioning Improvement Results and Unique Challenges in a Safety-Net Health System. Arjmandi FK; Munjal H; Hayes JC; et al.. JACR · 22(11):1371–1379. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2025.07.007.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
2026·Observational
Real-time feedback at image acquisition
Sexauer R; Riehle F; Borkowski K; et al.
European Radiology · 36(1):55–63 · online 2025
After implementation of AI quality feedback, inadequate images decreased over successive cohorts, from 13.31% at baseline to 3.20% in 2023.
What to keep in mind
Retrospective single-center implementation study, with vendor-linked coauthors; not randomized or a mortality study.
Citation & reading note
Enhancing breast positioning quality through real-time AI feedback. Sexauer R; Riehle F; Borkowski K; et al.. European Radiology · 36(1):55–63 · online 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-025-11812-w.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
2023·Randomized trial
MASAI: the early safety analysis
Lång K; Josefsson V; Larsson AM; et al.
The Lancet Oncology · 24(8):936–944
Early randomized MASAI results examined the safety and reading workload of AI-supported screening compared with standard double reading.
What to keep in mind
Early analysis; interval-cancer outcomes were reported later. Read alongside the 2026 primary-endpoint publication.
Citation & reading note
Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. Lång K; Josefsson V; Larsson AM; et al.. The Lancet Oncology · 24(8):936–944. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00298-X.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
2026·Randomized trial
MASAI: interval cancers and sensitivity
Gommers J; Hernström V; Josefsson V; et al.
The Lancet · 407(10527):505–514
AI-supported screening met the interval-cancer non-inferiority criterion. Sensitivity was higher, while specificity was similar between groups.
What to keep in mind
The numerical 12% interval-cancer reduction was not statistically significant; it is not evidence of mortality reduction.
Citation & reading note
Interval cancer, sensitivity, and specificity comparing AI-supported mammography screening with standard double reading without AI in the MASAI study: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, population-based, screening-accuracy trial. Gommers J; Hernström V; Josefsson V; et al.. The Lancet · 407(10527):505–514. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)02464-X.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
2025·Reader study
AI assistance and reader experience
Ramli Hamid MT; Ab Mumin N; Abdul Hamid S; et al.
PLOS One · 20(5):e0322925
A retrospective reader study of 434 mammograms explored how AI assistance affects readers with different experience levels.
What to keep in mind
Single referral-center dataset and four readers. Does not test positioning interventions or demonstrate population screening outcomes.
Citation & reading note
Comparative analysis of diagnostic performance in mammography: A reader study on the impact of AI assistance. Ramli Hamid MT; Ab Mumin N; Abdul Hamid S; et al.. PLOS One · 20(5):e0322925. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322925.
Summary based on the available full text.
2013·Systematic review
When pain becomes a barrier to returning
Whelehan P; Evans A; Wells M; MacGillivray S
The Breast · 22(4):389–394
Across 20 studies, pain emerged as a barrier to returning for screening. In robust studies asking non-attenders why they did not return, 25–46% cited pain.
What to keep in mind
That percentage describes non-attenders, not all screened women. Study methods and pain measures varied.
Citation & reading note
The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Whelehan P; Evans A; Wells M; MacGillivray S. The Breast · 22(4):389–394. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.003.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
2019·Randomized trial
Patient involvement in compression
Henrot P; Boisserie-Lacroix M; Boute V; et al.
JAMA Internal Medicine · 179(3):407–414
Self-compression met the breast-thickness non-inferiority criterion and was associated with less reported pain, without a reported image-quality difference.
What to keep in mind
Selected participants able to self-compress; subjective outcomes were unblinded. This evaluates compression, not MammoGRIP.
Citation & reading note
Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Henrot P; Boisserie-Lacroix M; Boute V; et al.. JAMA Internal Medicine · 179(3):407–414. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7169.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
2021·Narrative review
Understanding the limits of mammography
Berg WA; Rafferty EA; Friedewald SM; Hruska CB; Rahbar H
AJR · 216(2):275–294
Reviews how dense tissue affects mammographic performance and the benefits and tradeoffs of supplemental imaging options.
What to keep in mind
Narrative review reflecting evidence available at publication. Supplemental tests have distinct false-positive, access, and safety considerations.
Citation & reading note
Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. Berg WA; Rafferty EA; Friedewald SM; Hruska CB; Rahbar H. AJR · 216(2):275–294. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24436.
Summary based on the abstract and bibliographic record; consult the full text for methodological detail.
Educational reading to support critical appraisal. It does not replace individual clinical assessment, current guidance, or institutional protocols. Links open at original sources; articles, abstracts, and figures are not republished here.
