Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

In what clinical settings are the MASAI trial results applicable?

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

This Comment describes the clinical significance of the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence (MASAI) trial, which is, to the best of our knowledge, the first randomized trial of artificial intelligence-supported mammography interpretation to examine interval cancer as an outcome. This trial used artificial intelligence to assign single-reading versus double-reading of mammograms and found that this approach does not increase interval cancers in the Swedish population.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Hernström, V. et al. Screening performance and characteristics of breast cancer detected in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. Lancet Digit. Health. 7, e175–e183 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gommers, J. et al. 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. Lancet 407, 505–514 (2026).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Autier, P. et al. Advanced breast cancer and breast cancer mortality in randomized controlled trials on mammography screening. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 5919–5923 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kerlikowske, K. et al. Advanced breast cancer definitions by staging system examined in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 113, 909–916 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ryser, M. D. et al. Estimation of breast cancer overdiagnosis in a U.S. breast screening cohort. Ann. Intern. Med. 175, 471–478 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Giaquinto, A. N. et al. Breast cancer statistics 2024. CA Cancer J. Clin. 74, 477–495 (2024).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang-Petersen, C., Sowden, M., Chen, J., Burns, J. & Sprague, B. L. Changes to the US Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines and incidence of breast cancer. JAMA Netw. Open 7, e2452688 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Adamson, A. S., Patel, V. R. & Welch, H. G. Examining the relationship between incidence and mortality for commonly diagnosed cancers in the USA: an observational study using population-based SEER database. BMJ Open 15, e084955 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee, C. I. et al. National performance benchmarks for screening digital breast tomosynthesis: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 307, e222499 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Azad, T. D., Krumholz, H. M. & Saria, S. Principles to guide clinical AI readiness and move from benchmarks to real-world evaluation. Nat. Med. 32, 802–804 (2026).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Karla Kerlikowske

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Karla Kerlikowske

  3. General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Karla Kerlikowske

  4. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Kathryn P. Lowry & Diana L. Miglioretti

  5. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Kathryn P. Lowry

  6. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Diana L. Miglioretti

  7. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA

    Diana L. Miglioretti

Authors
  1. Karla Kerlikowske
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathryn P. Lowry
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana L. Miglioretti
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karla Kerlikowske.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

D.M. is a co-principal investigator of the PRISM trial (NCT06934239). The other authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kerlikowske, K., Lowry, K.P. & Miglioretti, D.L. In what clinical settings are the MASAI trial results applicable?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-026-01143-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-026-01143-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer