ArticlePloS one2026
What is the significance of a new breast mass in women aged 40 or above? A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast lumps are the most common presentation of breast cancer, and when detected in imaging, they are assigned a BI-RADS score dependent on their characteristics. Recency of a mass is not among these features, while in our center, the new occurrence of a solid breast mass in women 40 or above is considered suspicious because common benign masses typically occur before this age. We designed this study to evaluate data from our Arash Breast Diseases Registry to explore the results of this personalized approach.
methodsWomen aged ≥40 with a breast mass in exam, ultrasound, or mammography that had been biopsied or followed-up for at least 2 years were included. In addition to BIRADS 4 and 5 or suspicious clinical exam, new solid masses on breast examination, mammography, or ultrasound in women 40 or above were biopsied. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values for our institutional protocol and the guideline-based protocol where the recency of the mass is not an indication for biopsy.
resultsAmong 4865 women, 609 were eligible. The mean age was 49.06 ± 7.84 years; 135 were malignant, and 474 were benign. Our protocol showed an increase in the sensitivity (84.1% vs. 70.1%) and a decrease in specificity (40.3% vs. 95.4%) when compared to the usual protocol.
conclusionsWhile our institutional protocol increased the sensitivity and could lead to early detection, it lowered specificity, suggesting more false positive results. Our main suggestion is to consider "recency of a solid mass" as a criterion for suspiciousness in BI-RADS assignment to breast masses. We propose further studies to achieve a protocol that maximizes both sensitivity and specificity without compromising diagnostic reliability, and to find the cut-off for age when the effect of this factor increases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.