© 2000 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92, No. 12, 971-976,
June 21, 2000
© 2000 Oxford University Press
Findings From 752 081 Clinical Breast Examinations Reported to a National Screening Program From 1995 Through 1998
Affiliation of authors: Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Correspondence to: Janet Kay Bobo, Ph.D., Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS K55, 4770 Buford Highway, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30341 (e-mail: JBobo{at}cdc.gov).
Background and Methods: Mammography programs have received extensive study, but little is known about the outcome of clinical breast examinations (CBEs) performed in community settings. Consequently, we analyzed data from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program on CBEs provided to low-income women from 1995 through 1998 and determined the percentage of CBEs considered to be abnormal, suspicious for cancer; the rates of cancer detection; and the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of CBEs. Results: We analyzed data from 752081 CBEs and found that 6.9% of all CBEs were coded abnormal, suspicious for cancer, and that 5.0 cancers were detected per 1000 examinations (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.9–5.2). The values observed for sensitivity (58.8%) and specificity (93.4%) were comparable to those reported for the CBE component of clinical trials. The observed positive predictive value was 4.3%. About 74% of all records also reported mammography results. The cancer-detection rate among records reporting an abnormal CBE and normal mammography was 7.4 cancers per 1000 records (95% CI = 6.3–8.4). When the CBE was normal but the mammography was abnormal, the rate was 42.0 cancers per 1000 records (95% CI = 39.9–44.1). When both CBE and mammography results were abnormal, the rate was 170.3 cancers per 1000 records (95% CI = 162.7–177.9). Cancer detection could not be attributed entirely to CBE or mammography on 38% of the records in the latter subset because the tests were performed on the same day. Conclusion: CBEs performed in community-based screening programs can detect breast cancers as effectively as CBEs performed in clinical trials and may modestly improve early-detection campaigns.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Q. L. Okonkwo, G. Draisma, A. der Kinderen, M. L. Brown, and H. J. de Koning Breast Cancer Screening Policies in Developing Countries: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for India J Natl Cancer Inst, September 17, 2008; 100(18): 1290 - 1300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. N. Feigin, D. M. Keating, P. M. Telford, and M. A. Cohen Clinical Breast Examination in a Comprehensive Breast Cancer Screening Program: Contribution and Cost Radiology, September 1, 2006; 240(3): 650 - 655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. J. Fenton, M. B. Barton, A. M. Geiger, L. J. Herrinton, S. J. Rolnick, E. L. Harris, W. E. Barlow, L. M. Reisch, S. W. Fletcher, and J. G. Elmore Screening Clinical Breast Examination: How Often Does It Miss Lethal Breast Cancer? J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, November 1, 2005; 2005(35): 67 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Shen, Y. Yang, L. Y. T. Inoue, M. F. Munsell, A. B. Miller, and D. A. Berry Role of Detection Method in Predicting Breast Cancer Survival: Analysis of Randomized Screening Trials J Natl Cancer Inst, August 17, 2005; 97(16): 1195 - 1203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Elmore, L. M. Reisch, M. B. Barton, W. E. Barlow, S. Rolnick, E. L. Harris, L. J. Herrinton, A. M. Geiger, R. K. Beverly, G. Hart, et al. Efficacy of Breast Cancer Screening in the Community According to Risk Level J Natl Cancer Inst, July 20, 2005; 97(14): 1035 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. E. Jelinski, C. J. Maxwell, J. Onysko, and C. M. Bancej The Influence of Breast Self-Examination on Subsequent Mammography Participation Am J Public Health, March 1, 2005; 95(3): 506 - 511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Shen and G. Parmigiani A Model-Based Comparison of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2005; 14(2): 529 - 532. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Oestreicher, C. D. Lehman, D. J. Seger, D. S. M. Buist, and E. White The Incremental Contribution of Clinical Breast Examination to Invasive Cancer Detection in a Mammography Screening Program Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 428 - 432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Saslow, J. Hannan, J. Osuch, M. H. Alciati, C. Baines, M. Barton, J. K. Bobo, C. Coleman, M. Dolan, G. Gaumer, et al. Clinical Breast Examination: Practical Recommendations for Optimizing Performance and Reporting CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2004; 54(6): 327 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. McDonald, D. Saslow, and M. H. Alciati Performance and Reporting of Clinical Breast Examination: A Review of the Literature CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2004; 54(6): 345 - 361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. D. Leonard and S. M. Swain Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, Complexities and Challenges J Natl Cancer Inst, June 16, 2004; 96(12): 906 - 920. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. K. Bobo, J. A. Shapiro, J. Schulman, and C. L. Wolters On-Schedule Mammography Rescreening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2004; 13(4): 620 - 630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Jimenez-Lee, S. G. Oslak, K. Hedberg, and J. T. Vetto Surgical Outcomes of a Breast Cancer-Screening Program for Low-Income Women Arch Surg, August 1, 2003; 138(8): 884 - 890. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. B. Green and S. H. Taplin Breast Cancer Screening Controversies J Am Board Fam Med, May 1, 2003; 16(3): 233 - 241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Pichert, B. Bolliger, K. Buser, and O. Pagani Evidence-based management options for women at increased breast/ovarian cancer risk Ann. Onc., January 1, 2003; 14(1): 9 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. L. Ernster, R. Ballard-Barbash, W. E. Barlow, Y. Zheng, D. L. Weaver, G. Cutter, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Rosenberg, P. A. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, et al. Detection of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Women Undergoing Screening Mammography J Natl Cancer Inst, October 16, 2002; 94(20): 1546 - 1554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations Radiology, October 1, 2002; 225(1): 165 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. M. McGreevy, L. F. Baron, and D. G. Hoel Clinical Breast Examination Practices among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography Radiology, August 1, 2002; 224(2): 555 - 559. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. J. Baines Screening for Breast Cancer: How Useful Are Clinical Breast Examinations? J Natl Cancer Inst, June 21, 2000; 92(12): 958 - 959. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. B. Benard, C. R. Eheman, H. W. Lawson, D. K. Blackman, C. Anderson, W. Helsel, S. F. Thames, and N. C. Lee Cervical Screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1995-2001 Obstet. Gynecol., January 1, 1992; 103(3): 564 - 571. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|