This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (99)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Oncology  • Breast Cancer  • Physical Examination  • Screening  • The Rational Clinical Examination  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

The Screening Clinical Breast Examination: Should It Be Done? How?

Mary B. Barton, MD, MPP; Russell Harris, MD, MPH; Suzanne W. Fletcher, MD, MSc

JAMA. 1999;282:1270-1280.

Context  The clinical breast examination (CBE) is widely recommended and practiced as a tool for breast cancer screening; however, its effectiveness is dependent on its precision and accuracy.

Objective  To collect evidence on the effectiveness of CBE in screening for breast cancer and information on the best technique to use.

Data Sources  We searched the English-language literature using the MEDLINE database (1966-1997) and manual review of all reference lists, as well as contacting investigators of several published studies for clarifications and unpublished data.

Study Selection and Data Extraction  To study CBE effectiveness, we included all controlled trials and case-control studies in which CBE was at least part of the screening modality; for technique, we included both clinical studies and those that used silicone breast models. All 3 authors reviewed and agreed on the studies selected for inclusion in the pooled analyses.

Data Synthesis  Randomized clinical trials demonstrated reduced breast cancer mortality rates among women screened by both CBE and mammography. Evidence of CBE's independent contribution was less direct; CBE alone detected between 3% and 45%of breast cancers found that screening mammography missed. The precision of CBE was difficult to determine because of the lack of consistent and standardized examination techniques. Studies on CBE precision reported fair agreement (=0.22-0.59). Pooling trial data, we estimated CBE sensitivity at 54% and specificity at 94%. The likelihood ratio of a positive CBE result is 10.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8-19.2), while the likelihood ratio of a negative test result is 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56). Longer duration of CBE and a higher number of specific techniques used were associated with greater accuracy. The preferred technique for CBE includes proper positioning of the patient, thoroughness of search, use of a vertical-strip search pattern, proper position and movement of the fingers, and a CBE duration of at least 3 minutes per breast. The value of inspection is unproved. Professional and lay examiners improved their sensitivity on silicone breast models after being taught this technique.

Conclusions  Indirect evidence supports the effectiveness of CBE in screening for breast cancer. Although the screening clinical examination by itself does not rule out disease, the high specificity of certain abnormal findings greatly increases the probability of breast cancer.

Author Affiliations: Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (Drs Barton and Fletcher); and Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Harris).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Contribution of Clinical Breast Examination to the Accuracy of Breast Screening
Chiarelli et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1236-1243.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pointing the Way to Informed Medical Decision Making: Test Characteristics of Clinical Breast Examination
Barton and Elmore
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1223-1225.
FULL TEXT  

A Comparative Review of Thermography as a Breast Cancer Screening Technique
Kennedy et al.
Integr Cancer Ther 2009;8:9-16.
ABSTRACT  

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mammography and Clinical Breast Examination Strategies: A Comparison with Current Guidelines
Ahern and Shen
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:718-725.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Who receives, benefits from and is harmed by cervical and breast cancer screening among Hong Kong Chinese?
Leung et al.
J Public Health (Oxf) 2008;30:282-292.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening in women's health, with emphasis on fetal Down's syndrome, breast cancer and osteoporosis
Wildschut et al.
Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:499-512.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Breast Examination in a Comprehensive Breast Cancer Screening Program: Contribution and Cost
Feigin et al.
Radiology 2006;240:650-655.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RESPONSE: Re: Efficacy of Breast Cancer Screening in the Community According to Risk Level
Elmore et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1704-1705.
FULL TEXT  

Screening Clinical Breast Examination: How Often Does It Miss Lethal Breast Cancer?
Fenton et al.
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005;2005:67-71.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Benign Breast Disorders
Santen and Mansel
NEJM 2005;353:275-285.
FULL TEXT  

Why clinicians are natural bayesians
Gill et al.
BMJ 2005;330:1080-1083.
FULL TEXT  

Screening for Breast Cancer
Elmore et al.
JAMA 2005;293:1245-1256.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Influence of Breast Self-Examination on Subsequent Mammography Participation
Jelinski et al.
AJPH 2005;95:506-511.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Model-Based Comparison of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations
Shen and Parmigiani
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:529-532.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Incremental Contribution of Clinical Breast Examination to Invasive Cancer Detection in a Mammography Screening Program
Oestreicher et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005;184:428-432.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Breast Examination: Practical Recommendations for Optimizing Performance and Reporting
Saslow et al.
CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:327-344.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Performance and Reporting of Clinical Breast Examination: A Review of the Literature
McDonald et al.
CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:345-361.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities
Kerlikowske et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;139:274-284.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Surgical Outcomes of a Breast Cancer-Screening Program for Low-Income Women
Jimenez-Lee et al.
Arch Surg 2003;138:884-890.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Breast Cancer Screening Controversies
Green and Taplin
J Am Board Fam Med 2003;16:233-241.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003
Smith et al.
CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:141-169.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Primary Care: Is There Enough Time for Prevention?
Yarnall et al.
AJPH 2003;93:635-641.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Routinely Teaching Breast Self-Examination is Dead. What Does This Mean?
Harris and Kinsinger
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1420-1421.
FULL TEXT  

Variation in Average Costs among Federally Sponsored State-Organized Cancer Detection Programs: Economies of Scale?
Mansley et al.
Med Decis Making 2002;22:S67-S79.
ABSTRACT  

Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Humphrey et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2002;137:347-360.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Breast Examination Practices among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography
McGreevy et al.
Radiology 2002;224:555-559.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Palpable Breast Thickening: Role of Mammography and US in Cancer Detection
Kaiser et al.
Radiology 2002;223:839-844.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Family Breast Cancer History and Mammography: Framingham Offspring Study
Murabito et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:916-923.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Risk-Reduction Mastectomy: Clinical Issues and Research Needs
Stefanek et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1297-1297.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Breast and Pelvic Examination Requirements for Hormonal Contraception: Current Practice vs Evidence
Stewart et al.
JAMA 2001;285:2232-2239.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-Year Results of a Randomized Trial in Women Aged 50-59 Years
Miller et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1490-1499.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening for Breast Cancer: How Useful Are Clinical Breast Examinations?
Baines
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:958-959.
FULL TEXT  

Findings From 752 081 Clinical Breast Examinations Reported to a National Screening Program From 1995 Through 1998
Bobo et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:971-976.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Breast Examination for Detecting Breast Cancer
Goodson III et al.
JAMA 2000;283:1687-1689.
FULL TEXT  

Is the Clinical Breast Exam Effective?
JWatch Women's Health 1999;1999:7-7.
FULL TEXT