Abstract
Clinical breast examination (CBE) is one of the most common breast cancer screening modalities, but factors that affect its sensitivity are not well understood. We examined the association between CBE sensitivity and tumor, breast and personal characteristics among members of a managed care organization's Breast Cancer Screening Program (BCSP). The study population was 468 screened women 40 years and older diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1988 and 1994 within 1 year of a screening CBE. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the likelihood of a true positive versus a false negative CBE result, after adjustment for age, body weight and tumor size. CBE sensitivity increased with larger tumor size (17% for tumors ≤0.5 cm and 58% for tumors ≥2.1 cm, adjusted p for trend <0.001) and decreased with higher body weight (48 and 23% for the lowest and highest quartiles, adjusted p for trend <0.001). CBE was more sensitive in Asian women compared to white women (88% v.s. 35%, adjusted p = 0.04) and in current users of estrogen and progesterone combination therapy compared to never/former users (52% v.s. 33%, adjusted p = 0.08). There was an inverted U-shaped association between age and CBE sensitivity (40–49: 26%, 50–59: 48%, 60–69: 36%, 70–79: 33%, 80+: 18%, significant for oldest and youngest groups v.s. age 50–59 years). These findings suggest certain groups of women, for example, obese women and younger women, receive less benefit from CBE.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barton MB, Harris R, Fletcher SW: Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How? JAMA 282: 1270–1280, 1999
Bostick RM, Sprafka JM, Virnig BA, Potter JD: Knowledge, attitudes, and personal practices regarding prevention and early detection of cancer. Prev Med 22: 65–85, 1993
Report of the Working Group to Review the National Cancer Institute – American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Projects. J Natl Cancer Inst 62: 639–709, 1979
Miller AB, Baines CJ, Turnbull C: The role of the nurseexaminer in the National Breast Screening Study. Can J Public Health 82: 162–167, 1991
Greenwald P, Nasca PC, Lawrence CE, Horton J, McGarrah RP, Gabriele T, Carlton K: Estimated effect of breast selfexamination and routine physician examinations on breastcancer mortality. N Engl J Med 299: 271–273, 1978
Senie RT, Rosen PP, Lesser ML, Kinne DW: Breast selfexamination and medical examination related to breast cancer stage. Am J Public Health 71: 583–590, 1981
Campbell HS, Fletcher SW, Pilgrim CA, Morgan TM, Lin S: Improving physicians' and nurses' clinical breast examination: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 7: 1–8, 1991
Fletcher SW, O'Malley MS, Bunce LA: Physicians' abilities to detect lumps in silicone breast models. JAMA 253: 2224–2228, 1985
Hicks MJ, Davis JR, Layton JM, Present AJ: Sensitivity of mammography and physical examination of the breast for detecting breast cancer. JAMA 242: 2080–2083, 1979
Bender HG, Schnurch HG, Beck L: Breast cancer detection: age-related significance of findings on physical exam and mammography. Gynecol Oncol 31: 166–175, 1988
Baines CJ, Miller AB, Bassett AA: Physical examination. Its role as a single screening modality in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 63: 1816–1822, 1989
Bobo JK, Lee NC, Thames SF: Findings from 752,081 clinical breast examinations reported to a national screening program from 1995 through 1998. J Natl Cancer Inst 92: 971–976, 2000
Taplin SH, Mandelson MT, Anderman C,White E, Thompson RS, Timlin D, Wagner EH: Mammography diffusion and trends in late-stage breast cancer: evaluating outcomes in a population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 6: 625–631, 1997
Humphrey LL, Ballard DJ: Early detection of breast cancer in women. Primary Care Clinics Office Pract 16: 115–132, 1989
Peer PG, van Dijck JA, Hendriks JH, Holland R, Verbeek AL: Age-dependent growth rate of primary breast cancer. Cancer 71: 3547–3551, 1993
Seidman H, Gelb SK, Silverberg E, LaVerda N, Lubera JA: Survival experience in the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. CA Cancer J Clin 37: 258–290, 1987
Goodson III WH: Clinical breast examination. West J Med 164: 355–358, 19
El-Bastawissi AY, White E, Mandelson MT, Taplin SH: Reproductive and hormonal factors associated with mammographic breast density by age (United States). Cancer Causes Contr 11: 955–963, 2000
Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA: Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 2020–2028, 1999
Thurfjell E, Hsieh CC, Lipworth L, Ekbom A, Adami HO, Trichopoulos D: Breast size and mammographic pattern in relation to breast cancer risk. Eur J Cancer Prev 5: 37–41, 1996
Hoe AL, Mullee MA, Royle GT, Guyer PB, Taylor I: Breast size and prognosis in early breast cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75: 18–22, 1993
Reeves MJ, Newcomb PA, Remington PL, Marcus PM, MacKenzie WR: Body mass and breast cancer. Relationship between method of detection and stage of disease. Cancer 77: 301–307, 1996
Hall HI, Coates RJ, Uhler RJ, Brinton LA, Gammon MD, Brogan D, Potischman N, Malone KE, Swanson CA: Stage of breast cancer in relation to body mass index and bra cup size. Int J Cancer 82: 23–27, 1999
McDermott MM, Dolan NC, Huang J, Reifler D, Rademaker AW: Lump detection is enhanced in silicone breast models simulating postmenopausal breast tissue. J Gen IntMed 11(2): 112–114, 1996
Kavanagh AM, Mitchell H, Giles GG: Hormone replacement therapy and accuracy of mammographic screening. Lancet 355: 270–274, 2000
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oestreicher, N., White, E., Lehman, C.D. et al. Predictors of Sensitivity of Clinical Breast Examination (CBE). Breast Cancer Res Treat 76, 73–81 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020280623807
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020280623807