Specificity of clinical breast examination in community practice

被引:17
作者
Fenton, Joshua J.
Rolnick, Sharon J.
Harris, Emily L.
Barton, Mary B.
Barlow, William E.
Reisch, Lisa M.
Herrinton, Lisa J.
Geiger, Ann M.
Fletcher, Suzanne W.
Elmore, Joann G.
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Family & Community Med, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
[2] Hlth Partners, Minneapolis, MN USA
[3] Kaiser Permanente Ctr Hlth Res, Portland, OR USA
[4] Harvard Univ, Pilgrim Healthcare, Dept Ambulatory Care & Prevent, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[5] Canc Res & Biostat, Seattle, WA USA
[6] Univ Washington, Div Gen Internal Med, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[7] No Calif Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA USA
[8] Wake Forest Univ, Bowman Gray Sch Med, Dept Publ Hlth Sci, Winston Salem, NC 27103 USA
关键词
breast cancer; sensitivity and specificity; screening; physical examination;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-006-0062-7
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND: Millions of women receive clinical breast examination (CBE) each year, as either a breast cancer screening test or a diagnostic test for breast symptoms. While screening CBE had moderately high specificity (similar to 94%) in clinical trials, community clinicians may be comparatively inexperienced and may conduct relatively brief examinations, resulting in even higher specificity but lower sensitivity. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the specificity of screening and diagnostic CBE in clinical practice and identify patient factors associated with specificity. DESIGN. Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Breast-cancer-free female health plan enrollees in 5 states (WN, OR, CA, MA, and MN) who received CBE (N= 1, 484). MEASUREMENTS: Medical charts were abstracted to ascertain breast cancer risk factors, examination purpose (screening vs diagnostic), and results (truenegative vs false-positive). Women were considered "average-risk" if they had neither a family history of breast cancer nor a prior breast biopsy and "increasedrisk" otherwise. RESULTS: Among average- and increased-risk women, respectively, the specificity (true-negative proportion) of screening CBE was 99.4% [95% confidence interval (Cl): 98.8-99.7%] and 97.1% (95% CI: 95.7-98.0%), and the specificity of diagnostic CBE was 68.7% (95% CI: 59.776.5%) and 57.1% (95% CI: 51.1-63.0%). The odds of a true-negative screening CBE (specificity) were significantly lower among women at increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Screening CBE likely has higher specificity among community clinicians compared to examiners in clinical trials of breast cancer screening, even among women at increased breast cancer risk. Highly specific examinations, however, may have relatively low sensitivity for breast cancer. Diagnostic CBE, meanwhile, is relatively nonspecific.
引用
收藏
页码:332 / 337
页数:6
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 2003, CANC FACTS FIG
[2]
BAINES CJ, 1989, CANCER, V63, P1816
[3]
Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: Should it be done? How? [J].
Barton, MB ;
Harris, R ;
Fletcher, SW .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 282 (13) :1270-1280
[4]
Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: Frequency, evaluation, and outcome [J].
Barton, MB ;
Elmore, JG ;
Fletcher, SW .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1999, 130 (08) :651-+
[5]
Findings from 752081 clinical breast examinations reported to a national screening program from 1995 through 1998 [J].
Bobo, JK ;
Lee, NC ;
Thames, SF .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2000, 92 (12) :971-976
[6]
A NEW METHOD OF CLASSIFYING PROGNOSTIC CO-MORBIDITY IN LONGITUDINAL-STUDIES - DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION [J].
CHARLSON, ME ;
POMPEI, P ;
ALES, KL ;
MACKENZIE, CR .
JOURNAL OF CHRONIC DISEASES, 1987, 40 (05) :373-383
[7]
Breast cancer screening practices among women in the United States, 2000 [J].
Coughlin, SS ;
Uhler, RJ ;
Bobo, JK ;
Caplan, L .
CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL, 2004, 15 (02) :159-170
[8]
Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations [J].
Elmore, G ;
Barton, MB ;
Moceri, VM ;
Polk, S ;
Arena, PJ ;
Fletcher, SW .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1998, 338 (16) :1089-1096
[9]
The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations [J].
Elmore, JG ;
Wells, CK ;
Howard, DH ;
Feinstein, AR .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1997, 277 (01) :49-52
[10]
Efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level [J].
Elmore, JG ;
Reisch, LM ;
Barton, MB ;
Barlow, WE ;
Rolnick, S ;
Harris, EL ;
Herrinton, LJ ;
Geiger, AM ;
Beverly, RK ;
Hart, G ;
Yu, OC ;
Greene, SM ;
Weiss, NS ;
Fletcher, SW .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2005, 97 (14) :1035-1043