Survey finds many women still believe mammograms should start at age 50—experts say age 40

Nearly half of women misunderstand breast cancer screening guidelines, even as experts recommend yearly mammograms beginning at age 40

Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center

LinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Key takeaways

• 44% of women incorrectly believe mammograms should start at age 50.

• The survey found widespread confusion about screening guidelines, which can delay detection.

• CDC’s U.S. Cancer Statistics show breast cancer rates are rising among women younger than 45.

• Experts urge women to talk with a health care provider about when to start mammograms based on age and risk.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new national survey reveals many women are unsure about when to start mammogram screening for breast cancer and believe they should start later than doctors recommend.

The survey, commissioned by The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (OSUCCC–James), found that 44% of women incorrectly believe annual mammograms should start at age 50. Leading medical organizations recommend women at average risk for breast cancer begin yearly mammograms at age 40.

“Our biggest concern is ongoing confusion about screening guidelines,” said Alyssa Cubbison, DO, a breast radiologist at the OSUCCC – James. “For most women, breast cancer screening should begin with annual mammograms at age 40. Clear, accurate information helps women make informed decisions with their clinician and may lead to earlier detection.”

What major guidelines recommend

The confusion continues after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its mammography recommendations in April 2024. The task force recommends women at average risk get a screening mammogram every other year starting at age 40. But many medical experts—including the Society of Breast Imaging and the American College of Radiology—continue to recommend annual screening starting at age 40 for average risk women, a guideline followed by the OSUCCC – James.

The survey also found that many women believe screening should start even earlier. More than half of women (51%) said mammograms should be done every year, and 41% believe screening should begin by age 35.

“Initiating screening mammography before the age of 40 is appropriate in only certain patients deemed to be higher risk based on factors such as family history and genetic mutations,” said Cubbison.

In April 2026, the American College of Physicians updated its guidance to recommend mammography for average‑risk women ages 50 to 74 occur every two years, citing individualized decision‑making. The OSUCCC – James follows radiology‑focused guidelines recommending yearly mammograms beginning at age 40. Under the Affordable Care Act, annual screening mammography starting at age 40 is covered under Medicare and most commercial insurance providers. Insurance coverage may vary; patients should check with their insurance provider about specific coverage.

Why starting mammograms at 40 matters

Experts say the confusion is especially concerning as breast cancer diagnoses in younger women rise. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s U.S. Cancer Statistics, more than 27,000 U.S. women younger than 45 were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2022. CDC data also show the number of new cases in this age group increased an average of 0.7% per year from 2001 to 2022. Because younger women are not routinely screened, cancers in this group are more likely to be found at a later stage, when treatment can be more complex.

Why some women delay mammograms

Beyond confusion about screening guidelines, about half (53%) of the women surveyed cited some reported belief or reason for delaying or avoiding mammograms, including:

• Cost (28%)
• Discomfort (26%)
• Believing they were too young (26 %)
• Not having symptoms (25%)
• Concerns about radiation exposure (21%)

Younger women: when to talk to a clinician

The survey also highlighted uncertainty among younger women. About one in four women ages 18 to 29 said they would wait until symptoms such as pain or a lump appear before seeing a doctor—an approach experts say can delay diagnosis and treatment.

Most women under 40 are not eligible for regular screening mammograms. But experts encourage younger women—especially those with a personal or family history of breast cancer—to talk with a clinician about their risk. Knowing whether you have dense breast tissue can also help. Dense breast tissue can raise risk and make cancers harder to detect on mammograms. The survey found that most women would take follow-up action if a mammogram showed dense breast tissue, including talking with a primary care doctor or gynecologist (60%) or requesting additional imaging such as ultrasound or MRI (54%).

“Sharing these findings is meant to correct misconceptions, clarify screening guidance and encourage women of all ages to talk with their health care providers about when to start mammograms and how to protect their breast health,” said Cubbison.

To learn more about breast cancer research and patient care at the OSUCCC – James, visit cancer.osu.edu/breastcancer. The OSUCCC – James also recently launched the Building Research Innovation and Care Delivery for Groups with Early-Onset Cancers (BRIDGE) initiative to support people diagnosed with cancer at a young age.

Survey methodology

This survey was conducted by SSRS on its Opinion Panel Omnibus platform. The SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus is a national, twice-per-month, probability-based survey. Data collection was conducted from April 2-6, 2026, among a sample of 1,043 female respondents. The survey was conducted via web (n=1,014) and telephone (n=29) and administered in English. The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The Opinion Panel Omnibus data were weighted to represent the target population of U.S. female adults ages 18 or older.

###

---

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

People

Dismantling the Voting Rights Act Sets American Democracy Back Decades

While the Supreme Court is right to acknowledge that the situation today is different from past decades, it errs drastically in concluding that the proper path forward is to gut one of the key pieces of legislation that made that progress possible.



Voting rights activists protest outside the US Supreme Court as the court prepares to hear arguments in a case challenging Louisiana’s congressional map in Washington on Wednesday, October 15, 2025.
(Photo by Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Jordan Liz
May 01, 2026

Common Dreams

On April 29, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race, color, or membership in a “language minority group.” Under this provision, states were allowed to consider race in drawing district maps for the purposes of protecting the voting power of people of color. That is, until now.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map that created a second majority-Black district as “an unconstitutional gerrymander.” The map was created after the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals found that an earlier redistricting attempt with only one such district violated Section 2. The circuit court argued that the state unjustly divided Black communities in a way that “deprive[d] them of the opportunity to form effective voting blocs.” In response, Louisiana created a second majority-minority district, which Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.) won in 2024.
RECOMMENDED...


‘Tragic Day for the Freedom to Vote’: Supreme Court Guts Remnants of Voting Rights Act

This new map was later challenged by a group of self-described “non-African Americans” who contended that it violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Supreme Court concurred. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito remarked, the new map “would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”

Notably, the Supreme Court did not rule that Section 2 itself was unconstitutional. Rather, they determined that the framework used to determine whether a map violates the provision must be updated “so it aligns with the statutory text and reflects important developments” in the decades following the passage of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). These “great strides” include abolishing voting tests, erasing disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race, as well as greater shares of people of color elected to political office. For the Supreme Court, these developments warrant a higher bar for Section 2 violations.

The Supreme Court misunderstands the present. It pretends that we live in a nation largely free of the very kinds of racial prejudices and issues that gerrymandered maps like Louisiana’s allow Congress to overlook.

This is a reckless conclusion. While recent decades have seen sizable progress in addressing racial discrimination, the court ignores two key points: Fiirst, progress does not mean that the problem is gone. Anti-voter bills designed to undermine the political power of people of color continue to be introduced and passed across the country. This is especially true in red states. As the Brennan Center of Justice notes, “Racially diverse states controlled by Republicans are far more likely to introduce and pass restrictive provisions than very white states with Republican control; in other words, it’s states like Texas and Arizona, not Wyoming or Utah, that are passing the most restrictive legislation.” In fact, on April 27, the Supreme Court issued a shadow docket ruling that allows Texas to implement a gerrymandered map that a Trump-appointed judge had previously found to be “racially discriminatory.”

Second, and as this very ruling indicates, progress can always be undone. Prior to this ruling, the Supreme Court had already undermined core aspects of the VRA. This includes eliminating “preclearance” requirements which mandated that states with histories of racist voting practices must have new election laws or procedures reviewed by a federal court or the Department of Justice. Since then, multiple states previously covered by those requirements, including Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, have seen their congressional maps challenged in federal court over concerns of racial discrimination.

Becoming complacent, as the Supreme Court would have us, puts the hard-fought victories that people of color have achieved at risk. Their emphasis on racial progress overlooks that even seemingly colorblind policies can set us back decades. Consider for instance the nominally race neutral SAVE America Act. It requires proof of citizenship, such as a US passport or birth certificate, to vote. This is effectively a poll tax that will disproportionately harm poor people and people of color. According to a 2023 YouGov poll, only about a third of Black Americans have a current passport. Moreover, some Black people may face more novel challenges. The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities reports that elderly Black people who were born under Jim Crow may never have been issued a birth certificate at all. As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) put it, the SAVE America Act is “Jim Crow 2.0. […] What they’re trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades to prevent people of color from voting.” In short, the past is not simply history; if we are not vigilant, it can become our future.

The multigenerational, centuries-long issues of race will require more than 60 years to solve. While the Supreme Court is right to acknowledge that the situation today is different from past decades, it errs drastically in concluding that the proper path forward is to gut one of the key pieces of legislation that made that progress possible. More fundamentally, the Supreme Court misunderstands the present. It pretends that we live in a nation largely free of the very kinds of racial prejudices and issues that gerrymandered maps like Louisiana’s allow Congress to overlook. Importantly, by diluting the voting power of people of color and by extension their congressional representation, it undermines their efforts to combat racism, colorism, and xenophobia.

Nevertheless, under this court’s decision, future plaintiffs will have to show that “the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.” Simply demonstrating that a congressional map dilutes a minority group’s voting power will not be sufficient. As Justice Elena Kagan writes in her dissenting opinion, requiring “vote-dilution plaintiffs” to prove a “race-based motive” will “make success in their suits nearly impossible.”

Intentionality is an incredibly difficult legal standard to meet. Proving intent is among the core reasons why hate crimes are so difficult to convict in court. As such, it is no surprise that Kagan believes this ruling effectively renders Section 2 “all but a dead letter.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring majority opinion, wrote that the Supreme Court should never have interpreted Section 2 “to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’” In his view, Section 2 “does not regulate districting at all.” Thomas’ opinion is not only inconsistent with the legislative and judicial history of the VRA, but it is inherently contrary to the ideals of a democracy. Proportional representation is not a mere “entitlement”—it is a constitutionally mandated guarantee that ensures that communities have their unique concerns addressed and their interests protected.

The Supreme Court’s decision, in conjunction with the Trump administration’s unrelenting assault on the Constitution, have set American democracy back decades. Yet, this is no time to despair. Now more than ever, we must organize, build broad multi-state coalitions, protest, and demand that our rights be recognized.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jordan Liz
Jordan Liz is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. He specializes in issues of race, immigration and the politics of belonging.
Full Bio >

Further

Telling It Like It Is

Fannie Lou Hamer in 1971
Photo by Louis H. Draper

Abby Zimet
Apr 30, 2026

COMMON DREAMS

In a devastating blow to what John Lewis called “the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy,” a right-wing, illegitimate SCOTUS finally gutted the Voting Rights Act they’ve long been chipping away at, ensuring communities of color will increasingly be denied “a voice in their own destiny.” By striking down a new Louisiana voting map as a bogus “racial gerrymander,” the court’s extremist hacks betrayed generations who fought and bled, said Fannie Lou Hamer, “to live as decent human beings.”

The court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais kneecapped “our nation’s most important federal civil rights law,” effectively voiding the last remaining provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 that allowed voters of color to legally challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps. Specifically, they rejected Louisiana’s redrawn 2024 Congressional map that created a second majority-Black district - in a one-third Black state - aimed at righting the GOP’s racist wrongs of the past, defying precedent, context and common sense to argue the move, already upheld by two courts, was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”


It's Time to Abolish Columbus Day

In another outlandish opinion, Samuel Alito, the hackiest of a cabal of hacks, didn’t directly strike down Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race; writing for the majority, he argued he was simply “properly” re-interpreting it to require proof of intentional discrimination - which Congress didn’t write into the law, which defies past rulings that redistricting must only result in discrimination, intended or no, and which is almost impossible to prove. Thus, wielding “sleight of hand and legal gibberish,” did Alito give license for corrupt politicians to further rig the system by silencing entire communities of color.

The potential death knoll for a vital law that’s curtailed racial gerrymandering and discrimination for 60 years comes, of course, after years of whittling away by Roberts Court zealots, using tactics from voter ID laws to limiting registration. One advocate: “This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more seats they (could) win at the ballot box.” One “pernicious” result, writes Rick Hasen: To “bleach the halls” of Congress, state legislatures and city councils, the life’s work of judges who see their constituency as aggrieved white men hostile to the rights of minorities - a stance that puts them “at odds with democracy itself.”

In a fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan charged the majority “straight-facedly holds the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders.” The law they “eviscerate”, she wrote, “is - or, now more accurately, was - one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history. It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers, and repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed - not the Members of this Court.”

Above all, critics decry the hubris and perfidy of those heedless Court members blithely stripping from millions of Americans the elemental rights so many of their descendants struggled, suffered and died for. The Rev. William Barber eviscerated a court, ignorant of the painful history of “the rights that cost our people so much,” that has “decided their job is to enable extremism and systemic racism by arguing that race has no place in the American Democratic process. Race has always had a place in the process. And claiming that partisan decisions are not racist is a form of racism.” “Some of us,” John Lewis humbly noted of his lifetime of good trouble, “gave a little blood for (that) right.”

John Lewis called the fight for voting rights "the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes."Photo from Getty Archives

So did Fannie Lou Hamer, who fought against a Jim Crow South she’d grown up in because, “I was sick and tired of being sick and tired.” The granddaughter of slaves and youngest of 20 children of sharecroppers, she was 45 in 1962 when she went to a SNCC meeting at a church in Sunflower County, Mississippi and learned Black people could register to vote. The next day, she took a bus with 17 others to the county seat in Indianola. Police only let her and another person take the literacy test; she failed, but kept going back until she passed: “If I’d had any sense, I’d a been scared. But the only thing (whites) could do was kill me, and it seemed they’d been trying to do that a little bit at a time since I could remember.”

On the way back, police stopped them and brought them back to Indianola, where the bus driver was fined for “driving a bus the wrong color.” Back at the plantation, her children said the owner was angry she’d gone to vote; he told her to leave that night “because we are not ready for that in Mississippi.” “I didn’t try to register for you,” she said.. “I tried to register for myself.” Then she left: “They set me free. It’s the best thing that could happen. Now I could work for my people.” For the rest of her life, she did. She joined the voter registration campaign, helped organize Freedom Summer, became SNCC’s oldest field secretary, ran for Congress.

Left with a limp after surviving childhood polio, she embraced her identity as a Black working-poor woman with a disability and little formal education, upending preconceptions of both Black colleagues and white foes. When Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. once challenged her expertise, she retorted, “How many bales of cotton have you picked?” In 1963, she became more disabled after she was arrested with other activists in Winona MS, taken to jail and brutally beaten by cops and, on their order, other black prisoners, suffering permanent damage to her eyes, legs and kidneys. She was still in jail when Medger Evers was murdered.

In August 1964, she recounted that ordeal at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, days after the funerals of murdered Freedom Riders Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman. Testifying to the Credentials Committee, she challenged the seating of Mississippi’s all-white delegation - from still-all-white primaries - demanding the party seat Black members of an integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party she’d helped found. In the end, MFDP delegates were not seated - party leaders offered a compromise of 2 seats, which she declined - but she had confronted them on a national stage about their own discrimination, famously asking, “Is this America?”


- YouTubewww.youtube.com

During Hamer’s testimony, then-president Lyndon Johnson had hastily called a news conference to divert attention for white Dem voters alarmed by her insistence on true equality. Cameras duly cut away from Hamer, but networks later showed her speech. “Hamer had pulled back the curtain,” read one account. “The United States could not claim to be a democracy while withholding voting rights from millions of its citizens.” Ultimately, Hamer’s inclusive political vision, along with a groundswell of civil rights activism, led to Johnson’s finally signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ensuring government could not “deny or abridge the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color.”

Hamer remained active through the 1960s and 1970s. She spoke with Malcolm X in Harlem, at the ‘68 and ‘72 DNC, at 1969’s Vietnam War Moratorium rally in Berkeley. In 1971, she helped found the National Women’s Political Caucus, aimed at recruiting, training and supporting women to run for office. The titles of her speeches reflected her resolve, her anger, her fierce hope: “We’re On Our Way,” “Nobody’s Free Until Everybody’s Free,” “The Only Thing We Can Do Is Work Together,” “”What Have We To Hail,“ ”America Is A Sick Place,“ ”To Make Democracy A Reality,“ and, in 1976, ”We Haven’t Arrived Yet.“

Clearly, sorrowfully, we damn sure still haven’t. Unlike so many others, Hamer lived to do her work and tell her story, for a while. She died in Mississippi on March 14, 1977, aged just 59, of breast cancer exacerbated by high blood pressure, diabetes, and complications from her jail beatings. She died, too, “from being poor, Black, and an activist in Mississippi at a time when all of that was lethal.” Andrew Young gave her eulogy, telling mourners “the seeds of social change in America were sown here by the sweat and blood of you and Fannie Lou Hamer.” Then they sang her favorite song: “This little light of mine.” Her gravestone reads, “I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.” May we honor her labors, and may she rest in well-earned peace and power.

“The wrongs and the sickness of this country have been swept under the rug. But I’ve come out from under the rug, and I’m going to tell it like it is.” - Fannie Lou Hamer

“To the Justices Who Took What Others Bled For: History will have its say. But so will the bridge. So will the blood on the pavement. So will the people who were told to wait, then beaten for praying, then buried for believing the Constitution meant what it said....You’ll wear this shame for the rest of your lives.” - Derek Penwell

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Abby Zimet
Abby Zimet has written CD's Further column since 2008. A longtime, award-winning journalist, she moved to the Maine woods in the early 70s, where she spent a dozen years building a house, hauling water and writing before moving to Portland. Having come of political age during the Vietnam War, she has long been involved in women's, labor, anti-war, social justice and refugee rights issues. Email: azimet18@gmail.com
Full Bio >

 

USC-led team receives funding to build next-generation medical device that uses tears to monitor health

Researchers from USC and the California Institute of Technology aim to develop a tiny sensor and drug delivery system, implanted near the eye, with dry eye disease as its first target

Keck School of Medicine of USC

FacebookX

LinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

A team of researchers from USC in collaboration with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have received approximately $7.8 million from the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) Ocular Laboratory for Analysis of Biomarkers (OCULAB) program to build a medical device that could transform testing and treatment for a range of health conditions. The project, Personalized Automated Continuous Treatment for Eye Plus Systemic Disease (PACE+), aims to develop an implantable system, placed near the eye, that can measure biomarkers in tears to monitor dry eye disease (DED) and automatically deliver medication to treat the condition. The technology uses remote sensing capabilities and could be expanded for use in a range of other diseases, such as cancer, diabetes and neurological conditions.

ARPA-H, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, focuses on rapidly accelerating innovation to solve society’s most pressing health problems. OCULAB, which is led by ARPA-H program manager Calvin Roberts, MD, is focused on the development of a tear-based system that can measure biomarkers of DED and deliver medication for personalized treatment. ThePACE+ project is well positioned to meet this challenge, drawing on longstanding collaborations that unite clinical and biological expertise with advanced biomedical engineering. 

The OCULAB approach centers on tears as a diagnostic fluid. Tears contain many of the same biomarkers as blood but are easier to collect. Compared to intermittent blood draws, continuous monitoring of tears can track disease states more chronically with less burden to patients.

“Many people don’t realize how much information is in our tears. Because we can collect this information non-invasively and in real time, it can help personalize the approach to managing and treating a number of health conditions,” said Mark S. Humayun, MD, PhD, director of the USC Dr. Allen and Charlotte Ginsburg Institute for Biomedical Therapeutics and co-director of the USC Roski Eye Institute at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, who is leading the PACE+ project team.

An implant for dry eye disease

In DED, which affects more than 20 million people in the United States, tears do not adequately lubricate the eyes, causing dryness, pain and inflammation. Diagnosing and treating DED involves periodic testing and daily eye drops, which many patients find uncomfortable, inconvenient or difficult to adjust when symptoms change.

Humayun and his team will work to develop a closed-loop system that keeps DED symptoms under control, similar to the way an insulin pump monitors blood sugar and automatically adjusts dosing to keep it stable.

They intend to build a tiny implant, the size of a grain of rice, that can be placed through a small existing opening in the eyelid (corner of the eye) during a quick, painless procedure. A chip inside the implant measures tear biomarkers linked to DED symptoms and sends the data to the patient’s smartphone. The phone then automatically dispatches medication as needed through a second small device, tucked between the eye and lower lid. This helps manage symptoms as they fluctuate without requiring any action from the patient.

The researchers face several technical challenges. Because biomarker levels in tears are typically lower than levels in blood, the system must be highly sensitive. Meanwhile, most existing biosensors can measure markers for days or weeks, but the PACE+ system’s goal is to work for up to six months.

Power and data transfer are also difficult with such a small device. The system may be powered using a biofuel cell, which uses an energy source from the human body, or near-field communication (NFC), which wirelessly supplies power from a nearby device, such as a smartphone. NFC may also be used to transfer data between the implant and the patient’s smartphone.

Building a tear-based device

Over the next 18 months, the researchers will focus on engineering and validating the system. This includes demonstrating in the lab that the sensor can accurately measure DED biomarkers, confirming that the system can be safely positioned around the eye and conducting early tests in preclinical models. If the team meets these milestones, the project is eligible for up to $9.3 million in additional funding.

Beyond DED, the team will also explore whether the system can reliably measure depression-related biomarkers, including serotonin. The technology could someday be used for detecting and monitoring breast cancer, prostate cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, infertility and a number of other conditions with known tear-based biomarkers.

“This has never been done before, anywhere in the world,” said Humayun, who is also the inaugural holder of the Dennis and Michele Slivinski Chair in Macular Degeneration Research and University Professor of ophthalmology, biomedical engineering, and stem cell biology and regenerative medicine. “It’s a moonshot, but it could give us a far better way to monitor and manage some of the world’s most common and serious diseases.”

About this research

In addition to Humayun, the project’s other investigators include experts in dry eye Sarah Hamm-Alvarez and Maria C. Edman from the Keck School of Medicine of USC, University of Southern California; drug development expert Stan Louie from the Alfred E. Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Southern California; and bioelectromagnetics expert Gianluca Lazzi from the Keck School of Medicine and the Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California. California Institute of Technology (Caltech) collaborators include microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) expert Yu-Chong Tai; high-performance, low-power, mixed-mode integrated systems expert Azita Emami; biosensor design expert Wei Gao; and artificial intelligence and machine learning expert Yisong Yue. The project also includes biomanufacturing expert Andrew Urazaki from Urazaki Corp.

This research is funded, in part, by the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H).  The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government.

 

New guidance from ACP says all average-risk females aged 50-74 should undergo biennial mammography screening for breast cancer

ACP also offers screening advice for females aged 40-49, frequency of screening, discontinuing screening, and females with dense breasts

American College of Physicians

LinkedInWeChat

SAN FRANCISCO, April 17, 2026 – New guidance from the American College of Physicians (ACP) says all asymptomatic, average-risk females ages 50 to 74 should receive biennial screening mammography for breast cancer. Females between the ages of 40 and 49 should discuss with their doctor their risk for breast cancer and the benefits and harms of screening. This is because harms of screening such as false positive results, psychological distress because of it, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, additional testing, and radiation exposure may outweigh the uncertain benefits in this population. ACP's advice, "Screening for Breast Cancer in Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Adult Females: A Guidance Statement from the American College of Physicians", is published in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

ACP also provides guidance on when to discontinue breast cancer screening and how to approach screening for females with dense breasts. ACP says that asymptomatic, average‑risk females who are 75 years or older, or those with a limited life expectancy, discuss stopping routine screening with their doctor. This is because the benefits of screening beyond age 74 are reduced or uncertain, while potential harms, such as overdiagnosis, become more likely with increasing age. For asymptomatic, average‑risk females who have dense breasts, ACP advises doctors to consider supplemental digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Decisions should consider potential benefits and harms, radiation exposure, availability, patient values and preferences, and cost. However, ACP advises against using supplemental MRI or ultrasound for screening in this population. 

The guidance statement was developed by ACP’s Clinical Guidelines Committee which defined average risk as females who do not have a personal history of breast cancer or diagnosis of a high-risk breast lesion, a genetic mutation such as BRCA 1 or 2 that is known to increase risk, another familial breast cancer risk syndrome, or a history of high-dose radiation therapy to the chest at a young age. 

“Screening for breast cancer is essential and should be guided by the best available evidence" said Jason M. Goldman, MD, MACP, President of ACP. "ACP developed this guidance to provide physicians and females with the information they need to make breast cancer screening decisions, including when to start and discontinue, how often to screen, and which methods to use for screening."   

---

Journal

Annals of Internal Medicine

DOI

10.7326/ANNALS-25-05116 

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Screening for Breast Cancer in Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Adult Females: A Guidance Statement from the American College of Physicians

Article Publication Date

17-Apr-2026

Breast cancer special issue spotlights AI while widening the view of precision care

China Anti-Cancer Association

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

AI empowering breast cancer care.

view more 

Credit: Cancer Biology & Medicine

Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a powerful force in breast cancer research, but the future of personalized care will not be written by algorithms alone. A new special issue of Cancer Biology & Medicine brings together reviews, perspectives, editorials, and original research that examine how AI is beginning to support precision oncology while also highlighting wider advances in diagnostics, therapeutics, translational science, and clinical strategy. By placing AI alongside broader breast cancer research progress, the collection offers a more balanced and realistic picture of how the field is evolving toward more individualized care.

Breast cancer remains one of oncology's most complex diseases because of its biological heterogeneity, variable treatment responses, and rapidly changing therapeutic landscape. AI has drawn growing attention for its potential to improve prediction, classification, and treatment planning, especially as clinical, imaging, and molecular data become more interconnected. Yet progress in breast cancer medicine is also being driven by novel therapeutic modalities, precision diagnostics and subtyping, and translational oncology. A meaningful view of the field therefore requires attention not only to digital tools, but also to the scientific and clinical advances shaping care more broadly. Based on these challenges and opportunities, deeper exploration is needed into how AI and broader breast cancer research can move forward together.

Published on March 15, 2026 in Cancer Biology & Medicine, the special issue (DOI: https://www.cancerbiomed.org/content/23/3)“Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Breast Cancer Treatment” was guest-edited by Professor Zefei Jiang of the Department of Oncology at the Chinese PLA General Hospital. The issue reflects a wider landscape than its title alone may suggest. Alongside articles focused directly on AI in breast cancer, the collection also features work on precision immunotherapy, antibody–drug conjugates, engineered cell therapies, multi-omic analysis, digital pathology, and clinical trial methodology.

The issue’s AI-related contributions show where computational approaches are already gaining traction. A review on AI in breast cancer surveys current applications and advances, while another article examines the role of radiomics in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A multicenter original study extends that direction by using multimodal AI to predict PIK3CA mutation status from digital pathology and clinical data. Another study applies deep learning to dynamic optical coherence tomography for label-free diagnosis of lymph node metastasis. Beyond AI, the collection also features translational studies on dual therapeutic targets in luminal androgen receptor triple-negative breast cancer, and metabolic engineering of SLC38A2 to enhance CAR-macrophage antitumor activity, collectively showing how personalized breast cancer care is being shaped by converging advances across multiple domains.

“This collection shows that the next phase of breast cancer research is not about choosing between AI and traditional oncology advances,” the issue suggests. “It is about learning how to connect computational tools with stronger biological insight, better therapies, and clinically meaningful research design.” That balance is what makes the special issue especially timely: AI is presented as an important enabler of precision care, but not as a substitute for the therapeutic, translational, and methodological progress that continues to drive the field.

The broader message of the issue is clear. Personalized breast cancer treatment will likely depend on a more integrated research model, one that combines computational prediction with deeper molecular understanding, better treatment strategies, and stronger clinical evaluation. By bringing AI-centered work together with studies on advances in biological discovery and therapeutic innovation, Cancer Biology & Medicine offers readers a timely snapshot of a field moving toward more precise and more connected care.

For more details and to access the full special issue, visit Cancer Biology & Medicine online.
Artificial intelligence empowering precision diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer: advancing global clinical practice with regional insights
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2026.0018
Balancing global standards and regional nuances in breast cancer care: the role of guidelines, clinical research, precision medicine, and artificial intelligence in advancing quality of care for patients worldwide
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0674
Precision immunotherapy for breast cancer: from biomarkers to clinical practice
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0815
Advances in TROP2-targeted antibody-drug conjugates for breast cancer therapy: into the new era
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0504
Protocol and statistical designs in classic clinical research—toripalimab series trial analysis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0759
The role of radiomics in predicting the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0655
Artificial intelligence in breast cancer: applications and advancements
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0704
Integrative multi-omic analysis identified ERBB2 mutations and senescence-driven immune suppression as dual therapeutic targets in LAR triple-negative breast cancer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0691
Metabolic engineering of SLC38A2 reprograms glutamine utilization and enhances CAR-macrophage antitumor function in solid tumors
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0775
Virtual histology imaging of lymph nodes via dynamic full-field optical coherence tomography and deep learning to differentiate metastasis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0747
Multimodal artificial intelligence predicts PIK3CA mutation in breast cancer from digital pathology and clinical data: a multicenter study
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0771

###

DOI

https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2026.0018
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0674
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0815
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0504
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0759
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0655
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0704
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0691
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0775
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0747
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0771

About Cancer Biology & Medicine

Cancer Biology & Medicine (CBM) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal sponsored by China Anti-cancer Association (CACA) and Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital. The journal monthly provides innovative and significant information on biological basis of cancer, cancer microenvironment, translational cancer research, and all aspects of clinical cancer research. The journal also publishes significant perspectives on indigenous cancer types in China. The journal is indexed in SCOPUS, MEDLINE and SCI (IF 8.4, 5-year IF 6.7), with all full texts freely visible to clinicians and researchers all over the world (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2000/).

Video introducing the breast cancer special issue [VIDEO] 

---

Journal

Cancer Biology & Medicine

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Special Issue on Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Breast Cancer Treatment Guest