Background: The usefulness of clinical breast examination (CBE) in general and in breast cancer screening programs has been a matter of debate. This study investigated whether adding vision-impaired medical tactile examiners (MTEs) improves the predictiveness of CBE for suspicious lesions and analyzed the feasibility and acceptability of this approach. Methods: The prospective study included 104 patients. Physicians and MTEs performed CBEs, and mammography and ultrasound results were used as the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and logistic regression models were used to compare the predictive value of CBE by physicians alone, MTEs alone, and physicians and MTEs combined. Results: For CBEs by physicians alone, MTEs alone, and both combined, sensitivity was 71, 82, and 89% and specificity was 55, 45, and 35%, respectively. Using adjusted logistic regression models, the validated areas under the curve were 0.685, 0.692, and 0.710 (median bootstrapped p value (DeLong) = 0.381). Conclusion: The predictive value for a suspicious breast lesion in CBEs performed by MTEs in patients without prior surgery was similar to that of physician-conducted CBEs. Including MTEs in the CBE procedure in breast units thus appears feasible and could be a way of utilizing their skills.

Keywords:
Breast cancer, Clinical breast examination, Early cancer detection, Screening, Medical tactile examiners
1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A: Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:7-30.
2.
Kaatsch P, Spix C, Hentschel S, et al: Krebs in Deutschland 2009/2010; 2013. www.rki.de.
3.
Schneeweiss A, Lux MP, Janni W, et al: Update breast cancer 2018 (part 2) - advanced breast cancer, quality of life and prevention. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018;78:246-259.
4.
Taran FA, Schneeweiss A, Lux MP, et al: Update breast cancer 2018 (part 1) - primary breast cancer and biomarkers. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018;78:237-245.
5.
Lux MP, Janni W, Hartkopf AD, et al: Update breast cancer 2017 - implementation of novel therapies. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017;77:1281-1290.
6.
Untch M, Huober J, Jackisch C, et al: Initial treatment of patients with primary breast cancer: evidence, controversies, consensus: spectrum of opinion of German specialists at the 15th International St. Gallen Breast Cancer Conference (Vienna 2017). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017;77:633-644.
7.
Hassan LM, Mahmoud N, Miller AB, et al: Evaluation of effect of self-examination and physical examination on breast cancer. Breast 2015;24:487-490.
8.
Secginli S, Nahcivan NO: The effectiveness of a nurse-delivered breast health promotion program on breast cancer screening behaviours in non-adherent Turkish women: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud 2011;48:24-36.
9.
Smith EM, Burns TL: The effects of breast self-examination in a population-based cancer registry. A report of differences in extent of disease. Cancer 1985;55:432-437.
10.
Shyyan R, Sener SF, Anderson BO, et al.; Breast Health Global Initiative Diagnosis Panel: Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: diagnosis resource allocation. Cancer 2008;113:2257-2268.
11.
Mittra I, Mishra GA, Singh S, et al: A cluster randomized, controlled trial of breast and cervix cancer screening in Mumbai, India: methodology and interim results after three rounds of screening. Int J Cancer 2010;126:976-984.
12.
Gutnik L, Lee C, Msosa V, et al: Clinical breast examination screening by trained laywomen in Malawi integrated with other health services. J Surg Res 2016;204:61-67.
13.
Fenton JJ, Rolnick SJ, Harris EL, et al: Specificity of clinical breast examination in community practice. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:332-337.
14.
Hou MF, Chuang HY, Ou-Yang F, et al: Comparison of breast mammography, sonography and physical examination for screening women at high risk of breast cancer in Taiwan. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002;28:415-420.
15.
Chiarelli AM, Majpruz V, Brown P, et al: The contribution of clinical breast examination to the accuracy of breast screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1236-1243.
16.
Oestreicher N, Lehman CD, Seger DJ, Buist DS, White E: The incremental contribution of clinical breast examination to invasive cancer detection in a mammography screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:428-432.
17.
Sankaranarayanan R, Ramadas K, Thara S, et al: Clinical breast examination: preliminary results from a cluster randomized controlled trial in India. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1476-1480.
18.
Bobo JK, Lee NC, Thames SF: Findings from 752,081 clinical breast examinations reported to a national screening program from 1995 through 1998. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:971-976.
19.
Yen AM, Tsau HS, Fann JC, et al: Population-based breast cancer screening with risk-based and universal mammography screening compared with clinical breast examination: a propensity score analysis of 1429890 Taiwanese women. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:915-921.
20.
Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M: Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;CD001877.
21.
Gotzsche PC, Olsen O: Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000;355:129-134.
22.
Olsen O, Gotzsche PC: Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340-1342.
23.
Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al: Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007;244:381-388.
24.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175.
25.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al.; ACRIN 6666 Investigators: Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-2163.
26.
Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ: Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:177-182.
27.
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al.; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group: American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:75-89.
28.
Couch FJ, Hart SN, Sharma P, et al: Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:304-311.
29.
Fasching PA, Brucker SY, Fehm TN, et al: Biomarkers in patients with metastatic breast cancer and the PRAEGNANT study network. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015;75:41-50.
30.
Fasching PA, Ekici AB, Adamietz BR, et al: Breast cancer risk - genes, environment and clinics. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2011;71:1056-1066.
31.
Haberle L, Fasching PA, Brehm B, et al: Mammographic density is the main correlate of tumors detected on ultrasound but not on mammography. Int J Cancer 2016;139:1967-1974.
32.
Haberle L, Hack CC, Heusinger K, et al: Using automated texture features to determine the probability for masking of a tumor on mammography, but not ultrasound. Eur J Med Res 2017;22:30.
33.
Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, et al: The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107:dju397.
34.
Haberle L, Wagner F, Fasching PA, et al: Characterizing mammographic images by using generic texture features. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14:R59.
35.
Rauh C, Gass P, Heusinger K, et al: Association of molecular subtypes with breast cancer risk factors: a case-only analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev 2015;24:484-490.
36.
Wunderle M, Olmes G, Nabieva N, et al: Risk, prediction and prevention of hereditary breast cancer - large-scale genomic studies in times of big and smart data. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018;78:481-492.
37.
Von Euler-Chelpin M, Olsen AH, Njor S, et al: Socio-demographic determinants of participation in mammography screening. Int J Cancer 2008;122:418-423.
38.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S: Participation in mammography screening. BMJ 2007;335:731-732.
39.
Loehberg CR, Jud SM, Haeberle L, et al: Breast cancer risk assessment in a mammography screening program and participation in the IBIS-II chemoprevention trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;121:101-110.
40.
Fasching PA, von Minckwitz G, Fischer T, et al: The impact of breast cancer awareness and socioeconomic status on willingness to receive breast cancer prevention drugs. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;101:95-104.
41.
Bulliard JL, de Landtsheer JP, Levi F: Participation in Swiss mammography screening programmes: key role of physicians (Article in French). Praxis (Bern 1994) 2005;94:1381-1387.
42.
Brunton MA: The role of effective communication to enhance participation in screening mammography: a New Zealand case. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2009;6:844-861.
43.
McNoe B, Richardson AK, Elwood JM: Factors affecting participation in mammography screening. N Z Med J 1996;109:359-361.
44.
Brunton M, Jordan C, Campbell I: Anxiety before, during, and after participation in a population-based screening mammography programme in Waikato Province, New Zealand. N Z Med J 2005;118:U1299.
45.
Mahoney L, Csima A: Clinical screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1982;306:546.
46.
Goldreich D, Kanics IM: Tactile acuity is enhanced in blindness. J Neurosci 2003;23:3439-3445.
47.
Goldreich D, Kanics IM: Performance of blind and sighted humans on a tactile grating detection task. Percept Psychophys 2006;68:1363-1371.
48.
Kanemura S, Tsuji I, Ohuchi N, et al: A case control study on the effectiveness of breast cancer screening by clinical breast examination in Japan. Jpn J Cancer Res 1999;90:607-613.
49.
Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C: The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:305-312.
50.
Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C: Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1490-1499.
51.
Hoffmann F: discovering hands® gUG: Jahresbericht/annual report 2012.
52.
Beckmann MW, Brucker C, Hanf V, et al: Quality assured health care in certified breast centers and improvement of the prognosis of breast cancer patients. Onkologie 2011;34:362-367.
53.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-845.
54.
Oestreicher N, White E, Lehman CD, et al: Predictors of sensitivity of clinical breast examination (CBE). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;76:73-81.
55.
Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Loehberg CR, et al: Influence of mammographic density on the diagnostic accuracy of tumor size assessment and association with breast cancer tumor characteristics. Eur J Radiol 2006;60:398-404.
56.
Heusinger K, Loehberg CR, Haeberle L, et al: Mammographic density as a risk factor for breast cancer in a German case-control study. Eur J Cancer Prev 2011;20:1-8.
57.
Stone J, Thompson DJ, Dos Santos Silva I, et al: Novel associations between common breast cancer susceptibility variants and risk-predicting mammographic density measures. Cancer Res 2015;75:2457-2467.
58.
Hack CC, Emons J, Jud SM, et al: Association between mammographic density and pregnancies relative to age and BMI: a breast cancer case-only analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;166:701-708.
59.
Campbell HS, McBean M, Mandin H, Bryant H: Teaching medical students how to perform a clinical breast examination. Acad Med 1994;69:993-995.
60.
Campbell HS, Fletcher SW, Pilgrim CA, Morgan TM, Lin S: Improving physicians' and nurses' clinical breast examination: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 1991;7:1-8.
61.
Gerling GJ, Weissman AM, Thomas GW, Dove EL: Effectiveness of a dynamic breast examination training model to improve clinical breast examination (CBE) skills. Cancer Detect Prev 2003;27:451-456.
62.
Lee KC, Dunlop D, Dolan NC: Do clinical breast examination skills improve during medical school? Acad Med 1998;73:1013-1019.
63.
McDermott MM, Dolan NC, Rademaker A: Effect of breast-tissue characteristics on the outcome of clinical breast examination training. Acad Med 1996;71:505-507.
64.
Vetto JT, Petty JK, Dunn N, Prouser NC, Austin DF: Structured clinical breast examination (CBE) training results in objective improvement in CBE skills. J Cancer Educ 2002;17:124-127.
65.
Pilgrim C, Lannon C, Harris RP, Cogburn W, Fletcher SW: Improving clinical breast examination training in a medical school: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:685-688.
66.
Bertram B: Häufigkeit und Ursachen von Blindheit und Sehbehinderung in Deutschland. Der Augenarzt 2005;39:267-269.
67.
Hoffmann F: discovering hands® gUG: Jahres- und Wirkungsbericht/annual and impact report 2010.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.