Literature DB >> 15671358

The incremental contribution of clinical breast examination to invasive cancer detection in a mammography screening program.

Nina Oestreicher1, Constance D Lehman, Deborah J Seger, Diana S M Buist, Emily White.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15671358     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.2.01840428

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  14 in total

1.  Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification.

Authors:  Todd A Alonzo; John T Brinton; Brandy M Ringham; Deborah H Glueck
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  [Screening for cervical and breast cancer].

Authors:  J Wilm; S Schüler-Toprak; O Ortmann
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Performance of digital screening mammography among older women in the United States.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Ellen S O'Meara; Dejana Braithwaite; Tracy Onega
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Evaluation of Simulated Clinical Breast Exam Motion Patterns Using Marker-Less Video Tracking.

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

6.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography and clinical breast examination strategies: a comparison with current guidelines.

Authors:  Charlotte Hsieh Ahern; Yu Shen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Recommendations for breast cancer surveillance for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer given chest radiation: a report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group.

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

8.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Breast Medical Tactile Examiners (MTEs): A Prospective Pilot Study.

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

9.  Analysing the Insights and Assessing the Impact of a Digital Mammography and Tomosynthesis Based 2-year Long Prospective Breast Screening Programme Organised in Western India.

Authors:  Pranav Ajmera; Pratiksha Yadav; Udayan Dosi; Shreeya Goyal
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2022-01-01

10.  Specificity of clinical breast examination in community practice.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.