Practical Utility of Diagnostic Clinical Breast Examination in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Copyright © 2021, Turan et al..
Objectives We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of physician-performed diagnostic clinical breast examination (DCBE) for the diagnosis of breast cancer in clinical practice and to determine the rates of breast cancer diagnosed with DCBE compared to the results of breast ultrasonography (US), mammography (MG), and histopathology. Methods In the retrospective cohort study, the files of female patients diagnosed with breast cancer and admitted to the general surgery outpatient clinics of a university hospital over a 10-year period (2011-2021) were examined. Patients with complete DCBE findings in their files were identified and analyzed (n = 1,091). The examinations of the patients were performed by general surgery specialists with 5-22 years of experience and by radiologists with 4-15 years of experience. Results The mean age of breast cancer diagnosis of the patients was 55.1 ± 13.5 years. While the sensitivity of DCBE was found to be 88.9%, MG sensitivity was 89.8% and breast US sensitivity was 95.1%. Cancer was detected by MG, breast US, and DCBE in 47.9% (n = 523), by breast US and DCBE in 38.9% (n = 424), by MG and breast US in 5.6% (n = 61), by DCBE alone in 3.6% (n = 39), by MG and DCBE in 2.4% (n = 26), and by breast US alone in 1.6% (n = 18). Early-stage breast cancer (p = 0.00) consisted of 73.2% (n = 383) of cancers detected with DCBE, breast US and MG, 74.6% (n = 316) of cancers detected with DCBE and breast US, 93.4% of cancers detected with breast US and MG (n = 57), 92.3% (n = 24) of cancers detected with DCBE and MG, 94.4% (n = 17) of cancers detected with breast US alone, and 69.2% of cancers detected with DCBE alone (n = 27). Conclusions CBE still maintains its importance in societies where screening participation and awareness of breast cancer are low. A breast cancer diagnosis is often done after a complaint of a palpable mass in the breast, and only then are more advanced-stage breast cancers are seen. CBE is among the important diagnostic methods preventing breast cancer from being overlooked, especially in places where health resources are limited.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:13 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Cureus - 13(2021), 9 vom: 11. Sept., Seite e17662 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Turan, Muberra [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Breast diseases |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 15.10.2021 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.7759/cureus.17662 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM331874512 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM331874512 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225214431.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.7759/cureus.17662 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1106.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM331874512 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34646704 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Turan, Muberra |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Practical Utility of Diagnostic Clinical Breast Examination in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 15.10.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2021, Turan et al. | ||
| 520 | |a Objectives We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of physician-performed diagnostic clinical breast examination (DCBE) for the diagnosis of breast cancer in clinical practice and to determine the rates of breast cancer diagnosed with DCBE compared to the results of breast ultrasonography (US), mammography (MG), and histopathology. Methods In the retrospective cohort study, the files of female patients diagnosed with breast cancer and admitted to the general surgery outpatient clinics of a university hospital over a 10-year period (2011-2021) were examined. Patients with complete DCBE findings in their files were identified and analyzed (n = 1,091). The examinations of the patients were performed by general surgery specialists with 5-22 years of experience and by radiologists with 4-15 years of experience. Results The mean age of breast cancer diagnosis of the patients was 55.1 ± 13.5 years. While the sensitivity of DCBE was found to be 88.9%, MG sensitivity was 89.8% and breast US sensitivity was 95.1%. Cancer was detected by MG, breast US, and DCBE in 47.9% (n = 523), by breast US and DCBE in 38.9% (n = 424), by MG and breast US in 5.6% (n = 61), by DCBE alone in 3.6% (n = 39), by MG and DCBE in 2.4% (n = 26), and by breast US alone in 1.6% (n = 18). Early-stage breast cancer (p = 0.00) consisted of 73.2% (n = 383) of cancers detected with DCBE, breast US and MG, 74.6% (n = 316) of cancers detected with DCBE and breast US, 93.4% of cancers detected with breast US and MG (n = 57), 92.3% (n = 24) of cancers detected with DCBE and MG, 94.4% (n = 17) of cancers detected with breast US alone, and 69.2% of cancers detected with DCBE alone (n = 27). Conclusions CBE still maintains its importance in societies where screening participation and awareness of breast cancer are low. A breast cancer diagnosis is often done after a complaint of a palpable mass in the breast, and only then are more advanced-stage breast cancers are seen. CBE is among the important diagnostic methods preventing breast cancer from being overlooked, especially in places where health resources are limited | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a breast diseases | |
| 650 | 4 | |a breast neoplasms | |
| 650 | 4 | |a breast ultrasonography | |
| 650 | 4 | |a mammography | |
| 650 | 4 | |a physical examination | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sozen, Fisun |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Eminsoy, Muzaffer G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sencelikel, Tugce |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kut, Altug |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yildirim, Sedat |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Oksuz, Ergun |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Cureus |d 2013 |g 13(2021), 9 vom: 11. Sept., Seite e17662 |w (DE-627)NLM24118083X |x 2168-8184 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:13 |g year:2021 |g number:9 |g day:11 |g month:09 |g pages:e17662 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17662 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 13 |j 2021 |e 9 |b 11 |c 09 |h e17662 | ||