These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The predictive value of three diagnostic procedures in the evaluation of palpable breast tumours.
    Author: Crone P, Hertz J, Nilsson T, Junge J, Høier-Madsen K, Kennedy M, Bojsen-Møller J, Diepeveen P, Hahn-Pedersen A, Jørgensen SJ.
    Journal: Ann Chir Gynaecol; 1984; 73(5):273-6. PubMed ID: 6524859.
    Abstract:
    In a prospective study of 200 palpable breast tumours of 200 women, the diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of clinical examination, mammography, and fine needle aspiration were compared, alone and in combinations. All tumours were excised and examined histologically, and 38 were malignant. The diagnostic sensitivity of clinical examination was high, 98% (91-99), whereas the specificity was rather low, 48% (36-60). No statistically significant differences were found between the sensitivities or the specificities of the three examinations. When the methods were combined the sensitivity was 100% (96-100) and the specificity was 37% (27-46). Statistically, no improvement of the diagnostic value could be shown. It is concluded that the possibility of distinguishing between malignant and benign palpable breast tumours is not increased by adding mammography and/or fine needle aspiration, but the discovery of two non-palpable malignant tumours by mammography underscores the importance of this method in disclosing subclinical malignant lesions. The study disclosed a statistical possibility of overlooking a few malignant tumours when using these three procedures. Therefore, we advise that all palpable breast tumours should be excised.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]