OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the potential added contribution of clinical breast examination (CBE) to invasive breast cancer detection in a mammography screening program, by categories of age and breast density. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 61,688 women aged 40 years or older who had undergone at least one screening examination with mammography and CBE between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, for 1 year after their mammogram for invasive cancer. We computed the incremental sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of CBE over mammography alone for combinations of age and breast density (predominantly fatty or dense). RESULTS: Mammography sensitivity was 78% and combined mammography-CBE sensitivity was 82%, thus CBE detected an additional 4% of invasive cancers. CBE detected a minority of invasive cancers compared with mammography for all age groups and all breast densities. Sensitivity increased from adding CBE to screening mammography for all ages, from 6.8% in women ages 50-59 with dense breasts to 1.8% in women ages 60-69 years with fatty breasts. CBE generally added incrementally more to sensitivity among women with dense breasts. Specificity and positive predictive value declined when CBE was used in conjunction with mammography, and this decrement was more pronounced in women with dense breasts. CONCLUSION: CBE had modest incremental benefit to invasive cancer detection over mammography alone in a screening program, but also led to greater risk of false-positive results. These risks and benefits were greater in women with dense breasts. The balance of risks and benefits must be weighed carefully when evaluating the inclusion of CBE in a screening examination.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the potential added contribution of clinical breast examination (CBE) to invasive breast cancer detection in a mammography screening program, by categories of age and breast density. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 61,688 women aged 40 years or older who had undergone at least one screening examination with mammography and CBE between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, for 1 year after their mammogram for invasive cancer. We computed the incremental sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of CBE over mammography alone for combinations of age and breast density (predominantly fatty or dense). RESULTS: Mammography sensitivity was 78% and combined mammography-CBE sensitivity was 82%, thus CBE detected an additional 4% of invasive cancers. CBE detected a minority of invasive cancers compared with mammography for all age groups and all breast densities. Sensitivity increased from adding CBE to screening mammography for all ages, from 6.8% in women ages 50-59 with dense breasts to 1.8% in women ages 60-69 years with fatty breasts. CBE generally added incrementally more to sensitivity among women with dense breasts. Specificity and positive predictive value declined when CBE was used in conjunction with mammography, and this decrement was more pronounced in women with dense breasts. CONCLUSION: CBE had modest incremental benefit to invasive cancer detection over mammography alone in a screening program, but also led to greater risk of false-positive results. These risks and benefits were greater in women with dense breasts. The balance of risks and benefits must be weighed carefully when evaluating the inclusion of CBE in a screening examination.
Authors: David P Azari; Carla M Pugh; Shlomi Laufer; Calvin Kwan; Chia-Hsiung Chen; Thomas Y Yen; Yu Hen Hu; Robert G Radwin Journal: Hum Factors Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 2.888
Authors: Renée L Mulder; Leontien C M Kremer; Melissa M Hudson; Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Gill Levitt; Louis S Constine; W Hamish Wallace; Flora E van Leeuwen; Cécile M Ronckers; Tara O Henderson; Mary Dwyer; Roderick Skinner; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Michael P Lux; Julius Emons; Mayada R Bani; Marius Wunderle; Charlotte Sell; Caroline Preuss; Claudia Rauh; Sebastian M Jud; Felix Heindl; Hanna Langemann; Thomas Geyer; Anna-Lisa Brandl; Carolin C Hack; Werner Adler; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Matthias W Beckmann; Peter A Fasching; Paul Gass Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Sharon J Rolnick; Emily L Harris; Mary B Barton; William E Barlow; Lisa M Reisch; Lisa J Herrinton; Ann M Geiger; Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.128