ArticleCureus2026
Marked Unilateral Breast Enlargement Caused by a Fibroepithelial Lesion Suspicious for Phyllodes Tumor in the Modern Screening Era: A Case Report and Literature Review.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Markedly enlarged fibroepithelial breast lesions have become increasingly uncommon in the modern era of routine breast imaging and earlier diagnostic evaluation. We report the case of a 52-year-old woman who presented with progressive unilateral right breast enlargement and pain after delaying evaluation despite previously abnormal breast imaging. Clinical examination demonstrated marked right breast enlargement without overt inflammatory or infectious changes. Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy revealed a fibroepithelial lesion with benign phyllodes tumor included in the differential diagnosis; however, definitive histologic classification required excisional pathology. Given the extensive breast involvement and limited feasibility of breast-conserving surgery, the case was reviewed by a multidisciplinary team, and total mastectomy was recommended. At the time of manuscript preparation, the patient was still considering surgical management, and definitive excisional pathology and long-term follow-up were unavailable. This case highlights the uncommon contemporary presentation of a markedly enlarged fibroepithelial breast lesion despite advances in breast screening and emphasizes the diagnostic limitations of core needle biopsy, the importance of multidisciplinary evaluation, and the consequences of delayed medical assessment on subsequent management.
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.