Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1997;76(3):377–381. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1997.393

Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer.

L E Duijm 1, G L Guit 1, J O Zaat 1, A R Koomen 1, D Willebrand 1
PMCID: PMC2224070  PMID: 9252206

Abstract

In an observational follow-up study we determined whether the combined use of mammography and breast ultrasonography is an appropriate diagnostic tool to select patients with symptomatic breast disease who need additional pathological evaluation. Mammography and ultrasound were used as complementary diagnostic modalities in 3014 consecutively referred and mainly symptomatic patients. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated according to standard procedures. Virtually complete follow-up was obtained by correlating the radiological diagnosis with clinical records, final pathological findings, records from the Cancer Register and data from questionnaires sent to the general practitioners of all the referred patients. After an average follow-up period of 30 months, the sensitivity for breast cancer detection was 92.0% and the specificity 97.7%. A positive predictive value of 68.0%, a negative predictive value of 99.6%, a positive likelihood ratio of 40 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.08 were found. The mean diagnostic delay as a result of false negative examinations was 9 months (range 0-20 months). We conclude that breast imaging in routine daily practice, consisting of the integral use of mammography and ultrasonography, is an appropriate tool in the detection of cancer and should be included in the work-up of symptomatic breast disease.

Full text

PDF
377

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Azavedo E., Svane G., Auer G. Stereotactic fine-needle biopsy in 2594 mammographically detected non-palpable lesions. Lancet. 1989 May 13;1(8646):1033–1036. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)92441-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baines C. J., Miller A. B., Wall C., McFarlane D. V., Simor I. S., Jong R., Shapiro B. J., Audet L., Petitclerc M., Ouimet-Oliva D. Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a preliminary report from five centers. Radiology. 1986 Aug;160(2):295–298. doi: 10.1148/radiology.160.2.3523590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bassett L. W., Kimme-Smith C., Sutherland L. K., Gold R. H., Sarti D., King W., 3rd Automated and hand-held breast US: effect on patient management. Radiology. 1987 Oct;165(1):103–108. doi: 10.1148/radiology.165.1.3306779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bird R. E. Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1989 Apr;171(1):87–90. doi: 10.1148/radiology.171.1.2494683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. De Neef P., Gandara J. Experience with indeterminate mammograms. West J Med. 1991 Jan;154(1):36–39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Egan R. L., Egan K. L. Automated water-path full-breast sonography: correlation with histology of 176 solid lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984 Sep;143(3):499–507. doi: 10.2214/ajr.143.3.499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Elvecrog E. L., Lechner M. C., Nelson M. T. Nonpalpable breast lesions: correlation of stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy and surgical biopsy results. Radiology. 1993 Aug;188(2):453–455. doi: 10.1148/radiology.188.2.8327696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fleischer A. C., Muhletaler C. A., Reynolds V. H., Machin J. E., Thieme G. A., Bundy A. L., Winfield A. C., James A. E., Jr Palpable breast masses: evaluation by high frequency, hand-held real-time sonography and xeromammography. Work in progress. Radiology. 1983 Sep;148(3):813–817. doi: 10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fornage B. D., Lorigan J. G., Andry E. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. Radiology. 1989 Sep;172(3):671–675. doi: 10.1148/radiology.172.3.2549564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Frisell J., Eklund G., Hellström L., Somell A. Analysis of interval breast carcinomas in a randomized screening trial in Stockholm. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1987;9(3):219–225. doi: 10.1007/BF01806383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Guyer P. B. Direct-contact B-scan sonomammography--an aid to X-ray mammography. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1988;14 (Suppl 1):49–52. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(88)90046-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hansell D. M., Cooke J. C., Parsons C. A. The accuracy of mammography alone and in combination with clinical examination and cytology in the detection of breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 1988 Mar;39(2):150–153. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(88)80013-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Harper A. P., Kelly-Fry E., Noe J. S., Bies J. R., Jackson V. P. Ultrasound in the evaluation of solid breast masses. Radiology. 1983 Mar;146(3):731–736. doi: 10.1148/radiology.146.3.6298858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Helvie M. A., Pennes D. R., Rebner M., Adler D. D. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology. 1991 Jan;178(1):155–158. doi: 10.1148/radiology.178.1.1984295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hindle W. H., Payne P. A., Pan E. Y. The use of fine-needle aspiration in the evaluation of persistent palpable dominant breast masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Jun;168(6 Pt 1):1814–1819. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(93)90695-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jackson V. P. The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 1995 Nov;33(6):1161–1170. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaplan C., Matallana R., Wallack M. K. The use of state-of-the-art mammography in the detection of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. Am Surg. 1990 Jan;56(1):40–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kopans D. B. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992 Mar;158(3):521–526. doi: 10.2214/ajr.158.3.1310825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Locker A. P., Manhire A. R., Stickland V., Caseldine J., Blamey R. W. Mammography in symptomatic breast disease. Lancet. 1989 Apr 22;1(8643):887–889. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)92875-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Parker S. H., Burbank F., Jackman R. J., Aucreman C. J., Cardenosa G., Cink T. M., Coscia J. L., Jr, Eklund G. W., Evans W. P., 3rd, Garver P. R. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology. 1994 Nov;193(2):359–364. doi: 10.1148/radiology.193.2.7972743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Peeters P. H., Verbeek A. L., Hendriks J. H., Holland R., Mravunac M., Vooijs G. P. The occurrence of interval cancers in the Nijmegen screening programme. Br J Cancer. 1989 Jun;59(6):929–932. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1989.196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Reintgen D., Berman C., Cox C., Baekey P., Nicosia S., Greenberg H., Bush C., Lyman G. H., Clark R. A. The anatomy of missed breast cancers. Surg Oncol. 1993;2(1):65–75. doi: 10.1016/0960-7404(93)90046-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Robertson C. L. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. Radiology. 1993 Apr;187(1):75–79. doi: 10.1148/radiology.187.1.8451440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rosner D., Blaird D. What ultrasonography can tell in breast masses that mammography and physical examination cannot. J Surg Oncol. 1985 Apr;28(4):308–313. doi: 10.1002/jso.2930280415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sickles E. A., Filly R. A., Callen P. W. Benign breast lesions: ultrasound detection and diagnosis. Radiology. 1984 May;151(2):467–470. doi: 10.1148/radiology.151.2.6709920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Sickles E. A., Ominsky S. H., Sollitto R. A., Galvin H. B., Monticciolo D. L. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology. 1990 May;175(2):323–327. doi: 10.1148/radiology.175.2.2326455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sickles E. A. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991 May;179(2):463–468. doi: 10.1148/radiology.179.2.2014293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sienko D. G., Hahn R. A., Mills E. M., Yoon-DeLong V., Ciesielski C. A., Williamson G. D., Teutsch S. M., Klenn P. J., Berkelman R. L. Mammography use and outcomes in a community. The Greater Lansing Area Mammography Study. Cancer. 1993 Mar 1;71(5):1801–1809. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930301)71:5<1801::aid-cncr2820710515>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Standertskjöld-Nordenstam C. G., Svinhufvud U. Mammography of symptomatic breasts. A report on 1119 consecutive patients. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1980;69(2):48–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tabár L., Akerlund E., Gad A. Five-year experience with single-view mammography randomized controlled screening in Sweden. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1984;90:105–113. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-82031-1_14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Warwick D. J., Smallwood J. A., Guyer P. B., Dewbury K. C., Taylor I. Ultrasound mammography in the management of breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1988 Mar;75(3):243–245. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800750319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wolfe J. N., Buck K. A., Salane M., Parekh N. J. Xeroradiography of the breast: overview of 21,057 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1987 Nov;165(2):305–311. doi: 10.1148/radiology.165.2.3659348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. den Heeten G. J., van Rooij W. J., Roukema J. A. Echografie is van belang als aanvullend onderzoek bij mammografie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993 Nov 13;137(46):2378–2383. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES