Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27536182›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2016

Is clinical breast examination important for breast cancer detection?

L Provencher, J C Hogue, C Desbiens, B Poirier, E Poirier, D Boudreau, M Joyal, C Diorio, N Duchesne, J Chiquette

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07023198 (Provider-Initiated Screening Clinical Breast Examination and Patient Navigation in Sub-Saharan Africa), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07023198 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Provider-Initiated Screening Clinical Breast Examination and Patient Navigation in Sub-Saharan Africa

TypeinterventionalSponsorAddis Ababa UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled8,000ConditionsBreast CancerArmsClinical breast examination and Navigation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Breast health screening: a UK-wide questionnaire.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L ProvencherCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Surgery, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
J C HogueCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
C DesbiensCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Surgery, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
B PoirierCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Surgery, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
E PoirierCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Surgery, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
D BoudreauCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Surgery, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
M JoyalCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Family Medicine, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
C DiorioCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
N DuchesneCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Medical Imaging, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
J ChiquetteCentre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Oncology Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Department of Family Medicine, Cancer Research Centre, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.; Public Health Research Unit, Centre de Recherche du chu de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
Université Laval · CAHôpital du Saint-Sacrement · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening clinical breast examination (cbe) is controversial; the use of cbe is declining not only as a screening tool, but also as a diagnostic tool. In the present study, we aimed to assess the value of cbe in breast cancer detection in a tertiary care centre for breast diseases.

methodsThis retrospective study of all breast cancers diagnosed between July 1999 and December 2010 at our centre categorized cases according to the mean of detection (cbe, mammography, or both). A cbe was considered "abnormal" in the presence of a mass, nipple discharge, skin or nipple retraction, edema, erythema, peau d'orange, or ulcers.

resultsDuring the study period, a complete dataset was available for 6333 treated primary breast cancers. Cancer types were ductal carcinoma in situ (15.3%), invasive ductal carcinoma (75.7%), invasive lobular carcinoma (9.0%), or others (2.2%). Of the 6333 cancers, 36.5% (n = 2312) were detected by mammography alone, 54.8% (n = 3470) by mammography and cbe, and 8.7% (n = 551) by physician-performed cbe alone (or 5.3% if considering ultrasonography). Invasive tumours diagnosed by cbe alone were more often triple-negative, her2-positive, node-positive, and larger than those diagnosed by mammography alone (p < 0.05).

conclusionsA significant number of cancers would have been missed if cbe had not been performed. Compared with cancers detected by mammography alone, those detected by cbe had more aggressive features. Clinical breast examination is a very low-cost test that could improve the detection of breast cancer and could prompt breast ultrasonography in the case of a negative mammogram.

Indexed as

Breast cancerclinical examinationmammographypalpable breast massesscreeningultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID27536182
PMCPMC4974039
OpenAlexW2514039490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.