Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  Full Text of this article
space
 arrow  PDF of this article
(PDFs free after 6 months)
space
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
 arrow  Related articles in Annals
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Kerlikowske, K.
space
  arrow  Grady, D.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

ACADEMIA AND CLINIC

COMMON DIAGNOSTIC TESTS

Series Editors: Alan Garber, MD, PhD, and Harold Sox, MD

Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities

right arrow Karla Kerlikowske, MD; Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD; Britt-Marie Ljung, MD; and Deborah Grady, MD, MPH

19 August 2003 | Volume 139 Issue 4 | Pages 274-284

Background: Because approximately 1 in 10 women with a breast lump or abnormal mammography result will have breast cancer, a series of decisions must be taken by a primary care practitioner to exclude or establish a diagnosis of breast cancer among these women.

Purpose: To determine the most accurate and least invasive means to evaluate an abnormal mammography result and a palpable breast abnormality.

Data Source: MEDLINE search (January 1966 to March 2003) for articles and reviews describing the accuracy of clinical examination, biopsy procedures, and radiographic examination for patients with abnormal mammography results or palpable breast abnormalities.

Study Selection: The authors reviewed abstracts and selected articles that provided relevant primary data. Studies were included if 1) mammography, fine-needle aspiration biopsy, or core-needle biopsy was performed before a definitive diagnosis was obtained; 2) the study sample included 100 or more women; and 3) breast cancer status was determined from histopathology review of excisional biopsy specimens, from linkage with a state cancer registry or the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, or from clinical follow-up of 95% or more of the study sample.

Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted results. Methods were evaluated for major potential biases, but methodologic scoring was not performed.

Data Synthesis: Likelihood ratios for first screening mammography were 0.1 for the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment category "negative or benign finding," 1.2 for "probably benign finding," 7 for "need additional imaging evaluation," 125 for "suspicious abnormality," and 2200 for "highly suggestive of malignancy." For fine-needle aspiration biopsy of a palpable lump performed by formally trained physicians, the likelihood ratio was infinity for an assessment of "malignant," 2.6 for "atypical/suspicious," and 0.02 for "benign." When diagnostic mammography was used to evaluate a palpable lump or nonpalpable breast abnormality, the positive likelihood ratios were 5.6 and 9.4, and the negative likelihood ratios were 0.15 and 0.19, respectively.

Conclusions: Women whose screening mammography results are interpreted as "suspicious abnormality" or "highly suggestive of malignancy" have a high risk for breast cancer and should undergo core-needle biopsy or needle localization with surgical biopsy. Women whose screening mammography results are interpreted as "need additional imaging evaluation" have a moderate risk for breast cancer and should undergo diagnostic mammography or ultrasonography to decide whether a nonpalpable breast lesion should be biopsied. Women whose screening mammography results are interpreted as "probably benign finding" have a low risk for breast cancer and can undergo follow-up mammography in 6 months. Either fine-needle aspiration biopsy or ultrasonography is recommended as the first diagnostic test of a palpable breast abnormality to distinguish simple cysts from solid masses. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy also allows characterization of a solid mass. Diagnostic mammography does not help determine whether a palpable breast mass should be biopsied and should not affect the decision to perform a biopsy.

Author and Article Information
space

From the University of California, San Francisco, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, San Francisco, California.

Grant Support: In part by a National Cancer Institute–funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium co-operative agreement (U01CA63740) and National Cancer Institute–funded UCSF Breast Cancer SPORE (Specialized Program of Research Excellence) (P50 CA58207).

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.

Requests for Single Reprints: Karla Kerlikowske, MD, General Internal Medicine Section, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 111A1, 4150 Clement Street, San Francisco, CA 94121; e-mail, kerliko{at}itsa.ucsf.edu.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Kerlikowske and Grady: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, General Internal Medicine Section, 111A1, 4150 Clement Street, San Francisco, CA 94121.

Dr. Smith-Bindman: Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, UCSF/Mt. Zion Campus, 1600 Divisadero Street, Box 1667, San Francisco, CA 94115.

Dr. Ljung: Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, UCSF/Mt. Zion Campus, Box 1710, San Francisco, CA 94143.


Related articles in Annals:

Letters
Mammography and Palpable Breast Abnormalities
Arthur T. Evans
Annals 2004 140: 764. [Full Text]  

Letters
Mammography and Palpable Breast Abnormalities
Karla Kerlikowske
Annals 2004 140: 764. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. A. Carney, L. A. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, K. R. Yabroff, E. A. Sickles, D. S. M. Buist, C. J. Kasales, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, M. B. Dignan, et al.
Factors Associated with Imaging and Procedural Events Used to Detect Breast Cancer After Screening Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 385 - 392.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
T. R. Milanese, L. C. Hartmann, T. A. Sellers, M. H. Frost, R. A. Vierkant, S. D. Maloney, V. S. Pankratz, A. C. Degnim, C. M. Vachon, C. A. Reynolds, et al.
Age-Related Lobular Involution and Risk of Breast Cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst, November 15, 2006; 98(22): 1600 - 1607.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
K. Ghosh, L. J. Melton III, V. J. Suman, C. S. Grant, S. Sterioff, K. R. Brandt, C. Branch, T. A. Sellers, and L. C. Hartmann
Breast Biopsy Utilization: A Population-Based Study
Arch Intern Med, July 25, 2005; 165(14): 1593 - 1598.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher
Screening for Breast Cancer
JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Board Fam MedHome page
E. J. Aiello, D. S. M. Buist, E. White, D. Seger, and S. H. Taplin
Rate of Breast Cancer Diagnoses among Postmenopausal Women with Self-Reported Breast Symptoms
J Am Board Fam Med, November 1, 2004; 17(6): 408 - 415.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
A. T. Evans
Mammography and Palpable Breast Abnormalities
Ann Intern Med, May 4, 2004; 140(9): 764 - 764.
[Full Text] [PDF]




 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online 

Copyright © 2003 by the American College of Physicians.