Literature DB >> 27536182

Is clinical breast examination important for breast cancer detection?

L Provencher1, J C Hogue2, C Desbiens1, B Poirier1, E Poirier1, D Boudreau1, M Joyal3, C Diorio4, N Duchesne5, J Chiquette6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening clinical breast examination (cbe) is controversial; the use of cbe is declining not only as a screening tool, but also as a diagnostic tool. In the present study, we aimed to assess the value of cbe in breast cancer detection in a tertiary care centre for breast diseases.
METHODS: This retrospective study of all breast cancers diagnosed between July 1999 and December 2010 at our centre categorized cases according to the mean of detection (cbe, mammography, or both). A cbe was considered "abnormal" in the presence of a mass, nipple discharge, skin or nipple retraction, edema, erythema, peau d'orange, or ulcers.
RESULTS: During the study period, a complete dataset was available for 6333 treated primary breast cancers. Cancer types were ductal carcinoma in situ (15.3%), invasive ductal carcinoma (75.7%), invasive lobular carcinoma (9.0%), or others (2.2%). Of the 6333 cancers, 36.5% (n = 2312) were detected by mammography alone, 54.8% (n = 3470) by mammography and cbe, and 8.7% (n = 551) by physician-performed cbe alone (or 5.3% if considering ultrasonography). Invasive tumours diagnosed by cbe alone were more often triple-negative, her2-positive, node-positive, and larger than those diagnosed by mammography alone (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of cancers would have been missed if cbe had not been performed. Compared with cancers detected by mammography alone, those detected by cbe had more aggressive features. Clinical breast examination is a very low-cost test that could improve the detection of breast cancer and could prompt breast ultrasonography in the case of a negative mammogram.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; clinical examination; mammography; palpable breast masses; screening; ultrasonography

Year:  2016        PMID: 27536182      PMCID: PMC4974039          DOI: 10.3747/co.23.2881

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  41 in total

1.  The clinical breast exam: a skill that should not be abandoned.

Authors:  Teresa Bryan; Erin Snyder
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Low frequency of cancer occurrence in same breast quadrant diagnosed with lobular neoplasia at percutaneous needle biopsy.

Authors:  Louise Provencher; Simon Jacob; Gary Côté; Jean-Charles Hogue; Christine Desbiens; Brigitte Poirier; Isabelle Raîche; Linda Le Régent; Caroline Diorio
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Contribution of clinical breast examination to mammography screening in the early detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  C Bancej; K Decker; A Chiarelli; M Harrison; D Turner; J Brisson
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 5.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence.

Authors:  Doris Schopper; Chris de Wolf
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Tumor size and detection in breast cancer: Self-examination and clinical breast examination are at their limit.

Authors:  Uwe Güth; Dorothy Jane Huang; Marco Huber; Andreas Schötzau; Daniela Wruk; Wolfgang Holzgreve; Edward Wight; Rosanna Zanetti-Dällenbach
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2008-09-13

8.  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

Review 9.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial.

Authors:  Anthony B Miller; Claus Wall; Cornelia J Baines; Ping Sun; Teresa To; Steven A Narod
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-02-11
View more
  21 in total

1.  Recommendations on breast cancer screening and prevention in the context of implementing risk stratification: impending changes to current policies.

Authors:  J Gagnon; E Lévesque; F Borduas; J Chiquette; C Diorio; N Duchesne; M Dumais; L Eloy; W Foulkes; N Gervais; L Lalonde; B L'Espérance; S Meterissian; L Provencher; J Richard; C Savard; I Trop; N Wong; B M Knoppers; J Simard
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Work Transitions in Breast Cancer Survivors and Effects on Quality of Life.

Authors:  Rola Hamood; Hatem Hamood; Ilya Merhasin; Lital Keinan-Boker
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2019-06

3.  Physical examination in patient-centred care: Is the pendulum swinging too far the other way?

Authors:  Francine Lemire
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Comparative Proteome Analysis of Breast Cancer Tissues Highlights the Importance of Glycerol-3-phosphate Dehydrogenase 1 and Monoacylglycerol Lipase in Breast Cancer Metabolism.

Authors:  Kubra Karaosmanoglu Yoneten; Murat Kasap; Gurler Akpinar; Abdullah Gunes; Bora Gurel; Nihat Zafer Utkan
Journal:  Cancer Genomics Proteomics       Date:  2019 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.069

5.  The Influence of Screening Mammography Cessation and Resumption on Breast Cancer Presentation and Treatment: A Multi-Hospital Health System Experience During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Holly Mason; Ann-Kristin Friedrich; Shiva Niakan; Danielle Jacobbe; Jesse Casaubon; Aixa Pérez Coulter
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2022-09-28

6.  Evaluation of the Efficacy of Clinical Breast Examination Gloves in the Diagnosis of Breast Lumps.

Authors:  Vanessa Monteiro Sanvido; Andrea Yumi Watanabe; Joaquim Teodoro de Araújo Neto; Simone Elias; Gil Facina; Afonso Celso Pinto Nazário
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-06-01

7.  Targeting breast cancer outcomes-what about the primary relatives?

Authors:  Alison Johnston; Michael Sugrue
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 2.183

8.  Frequency and characteristics of contralateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography.

Authors:  Joost R C Lameijer; Angela Mp Coolen; Adri C Voogd; Luc J Strobbe; Marieke W J Louwman; Dick Venderink; Vivian C Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Inquiry and computer program Onko-Online: 25 years of clinical registry for breast cancer at the University Medical Centre Maribor.

Authors:  Darja Arko; Iztok Takac
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 2.991

10.  Breast health screening: a UK-wide questionnaire.

Authors:  Natasha Jiwa; Zoltan Takats; Daniel R Leff; Christopher Sutton
Journal:  BMJ Nutr Prev Health       Date:  2021-05-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.