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

Embargoed for release until 12:00 p.m. ET on Friday 17 April 2026
Embargoed Content from the Annals of Internal Medicine Breaking News Scientific Plenary at Internal Medicine 2026 

Follow @Annalsofim on X, Facebook, Instagram, Bluesky, and Linkedin    
Below please find summaries of new articles that will be published in the next issue of Annals of Internal Medicine. The summaries are not intended to substitute for the full articles as a source of information. This information is under strict embargo and by taking it into possession, media representatives are committing to the terms of the embargo not only on their own behalf, but also on behalf of the organization they represent.   
----------------------------   

1. 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

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-05116

URL goes live when the embargo lifts    

New guidance from the American College of Physicians (ACP) says all 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 will be presented at the breaking news scientific plenary session "New in Annals of Internal Medicine: Hear it First from the Authors" held at the Moscone Center in San Francisco during the American College of Physicians’ (ACP) Internal Medicine Meeting 2026. The paper will also be 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.

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Gabby Macrina at gmacrina@acponline.org. To speak with presenting author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, please email Enrique Rivero at ERivero@mednet.ucla.edu. To speak with someone at ACP, please email Angela Collom at acollom@acponline.org.

----------------------------  

2. AI scribe tools produce lower quality medical notes compared to human clinicians

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-02772 

Editorial: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-26-00231

URL goes live when the embargo lifts    

A cross-sectional evaluation found that clinical notes generated by ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe tools were consistently lower in quality than those produced by human clinicians. AI scribes performed especially poorly on key elements needed for accurate medical documentation, including thoroughness, organization, and usefulness. The findings will be presented at the breaking news scientific plenary session "New in Annals of Internal Medicine: Hear it First from the Authors" held at the Moscone Center in San Francisco during the American College of Physicians’ (ACP) Internal Medicine Meeting 2026. The paper will also be published in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

Ambient AI scribes have been shown to reduce administrative burden among physicians, but prior evaluations have not focused on documentation quality of these scribes. Researchers from the Veterans Health Administration sought to compare the quality of AI-generated clinical notes with that of human-written notes. Researchers used audio recordings of five standardized primary care visits and asked 11 AI scribe tools and 18 human clinicians, including physicians, pharmacists, and nurse care managers, to generate clinical notes from them. Thirty blinded raters scored each note using the modified Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9), which measures quality across 10 domains. In every case, human notes scored higher, in some cases dramatically so, and AI notes consistently scored lower across quality domains including accuracy, thoroughness, usefulness, organization, and comprehensiveness.

The authors conclude that while AI scribes may help reduce documentation burden, rigorous and ongoing testing of their accuracy and quality is critical before relying on them in clinical care. For clinicians, AI scribes should be regarded as tools for generating draft documentation that requires review and editing, rather than as a substitute for clinician-authored notes.

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Gabby Macrina at gmacrina@acponline.org. To speak with the presenting author, Ashok Reddy, MD, MSc, please email vha11clinicalservicescommunications@va.gov.  

----------------------------  

3. Common obesity medications lead to higher muscle loss than other weight loss interventions, review finds

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00478

Summary for Patients: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00478-PS

URL goes live when the embargo lifts     

A systematic review of clinical trials found that adults treated with incretin-based obesity medications, like semaglutide and tirzepatide, not only lose significant body fat but also tend to have more muscle-related loss than with other weight loss interventions. In two-thirds of studies reviewed, adults treated with incretin-based obesity medications experienced muscle‑related losses that exceeded common benchmarks, suggesting future research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms of these changes and their implications. The findings will be presented at the breaking news scientific plenary session "New in Annals of Internal Medicine: Hear it First from the Authors" held at the Moscone Center in San Francisco during the American College of Physicians’ (ACP) Internal Medicine Meeting 2026. The paper will also be published in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues aimed to understand how incretin-based medications affect body composition among adults with overweight or obesity. Researchers reviewed 36 randomized controlled trials reporting on body composition outcomes of liraglutide, semaglutide, tirzepatide, or dulaglutide compared with nonpharmacologic therapies including lifestyle interventions and placebo in adults aged 18 and older published between January 2023 and February 2026. While the medications reduced total weight, body fat, and visceral fat, the proportion of weight lost from muscle-related tissue varied widely and often surpassed prespecified benchmarks. Half of the placebo/lifestyle interventions examined also exceeded prespecified benchmarks for muscle-related loss, despite these interventions often leading to more modest weight loss.  Because no studies assessed objective physical function and measurement methods differed, researchers could not combine findings in a meta‑analysis.

The researchers conclude that muscle-related losses were greater than anticipated in many treatment groups and emphasized the need for future clinical trials to clarify why these changes occur and what they mean for long‑term health. Additionally, the amount of muscle-related loss seen in the comparator intervention groups suggests muscle loss is a consequence of weight loss itself, rather than a side effect of incretin-based therapies. These findings underscore the need for clinicians to proactively counsel patients around muscle-related losses associated with weight reduction and muscle-preserving strategies to incorporate alongside pharmacotherapy. 

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Gabby Macrina at gmacrina@acponline.org. To speak with the presenting author, John A. Batsis, MD, please email Nancy Bostrom at Nancy.Bostrom@unchealth.unc.edu.

-------------------------------