Specificity of Clinical Breast Examination in Community Practice

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Specificity of Clinical Breast Examination in Community Practice

Citable link to this page


Title: Specificity of Clinical Breast Examination in Community Practice
Author: Fenton, Joshua J.; Rolnick, Sharon J.; Harris, Emily L.; Barton, Mary B.; Barlow, William E.; Reisch, Lisa M.; Herrinton, Lisa J.; Geiger, Ann M.; Elmore, Joann G.; Fletcher, Suzanne W.

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Fenton, Joshua J., Sharon J. Rolnick, Emily L. Harris, Mary B. Barton, William E. Barlow, Lisa M. Reisch, Lisa J. Herrinton, Ann M. Geiger, Suzanne W. Fletcher, and Joann G. Elmore. 2007. Specificity of clinical breast examination in community practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22(3): 332-337.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: 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 (\(\sim\)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 (WA, 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 (true-negative vs false-positive). Women were considered “average-risk” if they had neither a family history of breast cancer nor a prior breast biopsy and “increased-risk” otherwise. Results: Among average- and increased-risk women, respectively, the specificity (true-negative proportion) of screening CBE was 99.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 98.8–99.7%] and 97.1% (95% CI: 95.7–98.0%), and the specificity of diagnostic CBE was 68.7% (95% CI: 59.7–76.5%) 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.
Published Version: doi://10.1007/s11606-006-0062-7
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1824753/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10235965
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)


Search DASH

Advanced Search