Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32031433›Full record

ArticleJCO global oncology2020

Clinical Utility of a Hand-Held Scanner for Breast Cancer Early Detection and Patient Triage.

Julie M Clanahan, Sanjana Reddy, Robyn B Broach, Anne F Rositch, Benjamin O Anderson, E Paul Wileyto, Brian S Englander, Ari D Brooks

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO global oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Julie M ClanahanPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Sanjana ReddyDepartment of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Robyn B BroachDepartment of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Anne F RositchDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Benjamin O AndersonDepartments of Surgery and Global Health Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
E Paul WileytoDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Brian S EnglanderDepartment of Radiology, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.
Ari D BrooksDepartment of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
University of Pennsylvania · USJohns Hopkins University · USPennsylvania Hospital · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGlobally, breast cancer represents the most common cause of cancer death among women. Early cancer diagnosis is difficult in low- and middle-income countries, most of which are unable to support population-based mammographic screening. Triage on the basis of clinical breast examination (CBE) alone can be difficult to implement. In contrast, piezo-electric palpation (intelligent Breast Exam [iBE]) may improve triage because it is portable, low cost, has a short learning curve, and provides electronic documentation for additional diagnostic workup. We compared iBE and CBE performance in a screening patient cohort from a Western mammography center.

methodsWomen presenting for screening or diagnostic workup were enrolled and underwent iBE then CBE, followed by mammography. Mammography was classified as negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2) or positive (BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5). Measures of accuracy and κ score were calculated.

resultsBetween April 2015 and May 2017, 516 women were enrolled. Of these patients, 486 completed iBE, CBE, and mammography. There were 101 positive iBE results, 66 positive CBE results, and 35 positive mammograms. iBE and CBE demonstrated moderate agreement on categorization (κ = 0.53), but minimal agreement with mammography (κ = 0.08). iBE had a specificity of 80.3% and a negative predictive value of 94%. In this cohort, only five of 486 patients had a malignancy; iBE and CBE identified three of these five. The two cancers missed by both modalities were small-a 3-mm retro-areolar and a 1-cm axillary tail.

conclusioniBE performs comparably to CBE as a triage tool. Only minimal cancers detected through mammographic screening were missed on iBE. Ultimately, our data suggest that iBE and CBE can synergize as triage tools to significantly reduce the numbers of patients who need additional diagnostic imaging in resource-limited areas.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerBreastFemaleHumansMammographyTriage

Identifiers

PMID32031433
PMCPMC6998011
OpenAlexW2997232478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.