ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Optimising screening intervals and BI-RADS management pathways in ultrasound-based breast cancer screening: real-world evidence from Shenzhen (2018-2023).
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify screening intervals and BI-RADS-specific management pathways that balance cancer detection yield against recall burden in ultrasound-based breast cancer screening in China.
methodsWe analysed 1,694,838 ultrasound examinations reported with BI-RADS (2018-2023). For BI-RADS 1/2, inter-screen intervals were evaluated by recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value (PPV), and early-stage proportion. For BI-RADS 0/3/4/5, we assessed associations between biopsy waiting time and PPV/early-stage proportion, and examined imaging follow-up outcomes for BI-RADS 4A.
resultsAmong 337,497 screening intervals following BI-RADS 1/2, longer intervals were associated with higher CDR (0.13-0.54 per 1,000) but higher recall (17.4%-22.1%) and lower PPV (61.1%-31.0%), while early-stage proportion remained stable. The interval that best balanced yield and downstream burden was 13-24 months for women aged ≥ 40 years and 25-36 months for women aged < 40 years, achieving higher detection yield and PPV without a material increase in recall. Among 1,949 BI-RADS 4/5 biopsies, PPV was low for 4A (12.3%-25.0%), declined markedly with biopsy delay for 4B (60.5% to 25.0%), and remained consistently high for 4C/5 (> 60%/>93%). Among BI-RADS 4A lesions 64.7% (10,909/16,871) showed imaging downgrading during follow-up. In 487 BI-RADS 3 cases undergoing biopsy, delayed biopsy increased PPV without changing early-stage proportion.
conclusionA 2-year screening interval is recommended for women aged 40-64 years, extendable to 3 years for those aged < 40. Prompt biopsy is warranted for BI-RADS 4B/4C/5. The high image downgrade rate of BI-RADS 4A suggests overestimation and supports imaging-based triage, requiring further validation. Imaging surveillance is preferable for BI-RADS 3 lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.