Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 56, Issue 7 , Pages 636-645 , July 2003

Development of a clinical decision rule for triage of women with palpable breast masses

  • Mathew J. Reeves

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, 4660 S. Hagadorn Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: 517-353-8623; fax: 517-432-1130.
    • ,
  • Janet Rose Osuch

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, 4660 S. Hagadorn Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
    • Department of Surgery, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
    • ,
  • Dorothy R. Pathak

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, 4660 S. Hagadorn Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
    • Department of Family Practice, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

References 

  1. Leis HP. Clinical diagnosis of breast cancer. J Reprod Med. 1975;14:231–240
  2. Donegan WL. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:937–942
  3. Martelli G, Pilotti S, Coopmans de Yoldi G, et al.  Diagnostic efficacy of physical examination, mammography, fine needle aspiration cytology (triple-test) in solid breast lumps: an analysis of 1708 consecutive cases. Tumori. 1990;76:476–479
  4. Smallwood J, Khong Y, Boyd A, et al.  Assessment of a scoring scheme for the preoperative diagnosis of breast lumps. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1984;66:267–269
  5. Di Pietro S, Fariselli G, Bandieramonte G, et al.  Diagnostic efficacy of the clinical-radiological-cytological triad in solid breast lumps: results of a second prospective study on 631 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1987;13:335–340
  6. Morris KT, Pommier RF, Morris A, et al.  Usefulness of Triple Test Score for palpable breast masses. Arch Surg. 2001;136:1008–1013
  7. Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, et al.  Clinical prediction rules: application and methodological standards. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:793–799
  8. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 1997;277:488–494
  9. McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, et al.  Users' guide to the medical literature. XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA. 2000;284:79–84
  10. Colditz GA, Sankinson SE, Hunter DJ, et al.  The use of estrogens and progestins and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1589–1593
  11. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®). Third Edition. Reston, VA: © American College of Radiology; 1998;
  12. Horobin JM, Matthew BM, Preece PE, et al.  Effects of fine needle aspiration on subsequent mammograms. Br J Surg. 1992;79(Suppl 1):52–54
  13. Sickles EA, Klein DL, Goodson WH, et al.  Mammography after needle aspiration of palpable breast masses. Am J Surg. 1983;145:395
  14. Martin H, Ellis E. Biopsy by needle puncture and aspiration. Ann Surg. 1930;92:169–181
  15. Roberts JC, Rainsbury RM. ‘Tactile sensation’: a new clinical sign during fine needle aspiration of breast lumps. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994;76(Suppl 2):136–138
  16. In:  Kline TS,  Kline IK editor. Guides to clinical aspiration biopsy - breast. New York: Igaku-Shoin; 1989;
  17. National Cancer Institute Fine-Needle Aspiration of Breast Workshop Subcommittees . The uniform approach to breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16(Suppl 4):295–311
  18. In:  Kleinbaum DG editors. Logistic regression. New York: Springer Verlag; 1994;
  19. In:  Hosmer D,  Lemeshow S editor. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1989;
  20. SAS version 8.02. Cary (NC): SAS Institute; 2001;
  21. In:  Sackett DL,  Haynes RB,  Guyatt GH,  Tugwell P editor. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1991;
  22. Metz CE. ROCKIT, vol. 2002. Version 0.9B. Chicago: University of Chicago; 1998;
  23. Goehring C, Morabia A. Epidemiology of benign breast disease, with special attention to histologic types. Epidemiol Rev. 1997;19:310–327
  24. Osuch JR, Reeves MJ, Pathak DR, et al. BREASTAID: Clinical results from early development of a clinical decision rule for palpable solid breast masses. Ann Surg, in press.
  25. Harrell FE, Kee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluation assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–387
  26. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE, Borsboom GJJM, et al.  Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:774–781
  27. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1801–1809
  28. Ciccone G, Vineis P, Frigerio A, et al.  Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study. Eur J Cancer. 1992;28A:1054–1058
  29. Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:201–210
  30. Albert A. On the use and computation of likelihood ratios in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem. 1982;28:1113–1119
  31. Reeves M, Curtis C, Salman T, et al.  Validation of logistic regression models used in the assessment of prognosis and the need for surgery in equine colic patients. Prev Vet Med. 1992;13:155–172
  32. Irwig L. Modelling result-specific likelihood ratios. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:1135–1140

PII: S0895-4356(03)00123-9

doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00123-9

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 56, Issue 7 , Pages 636-645 , July 2003

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution