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

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 56, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 636-645

  Reeves, Mathew J ^a   Osuch, Janet Rose ^a   Pathak, Dorothy R ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Clinical decision rule; Logistic regression; Predictive models

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BODY REGIONS; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INVASION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PALPATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TUMOR DIAGNOSIS; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 0042561883     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00123-9     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Leis H.P. Clinical diagnosis of breast cancer. J Reprod Med. 14:1975;231-240.
2. Donegan W.L. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med. 327:1992;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. 76:1990;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. 66:1984;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. 13:1987;335-340.
6. Morris K.T., Pommier R.F., Morris A., et al. Usefulness of Triple Test Score for palpable breast masses. Arch Surg. 136:2001;1008-1013.
7. Wasson J.H., Sox H.C., Neff R.K., et al. Clinical prediction rules: application and methodological standards. N Engl J Med. 313:1985;793-799.
8. Laupacis A., Sekar N., Stiell I.G. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 277:1997;488-494.
9. McGinn T.G., Guyatt G.H., Wyer P.C., et al. Users' guide to the medical literature. XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA. 284:2000;79-84.
10. Colditz G.A., Sankinson S.E., Hunter D.J., et al. The use of estrogens and progestins and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 332:1995;1589-1593.
11. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®). Third Edition: 1998;© American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.
12. Horobin J.M., Matthew B.M., Preece P.E., et al. Effects of fine needle aspiration on subsequent mammograms. Br J Surg. 79:(Suppl 1):1992;52-54.
13. Sickles E.A., Klein D.L., Goodson W.H., et al. Mammography after needle aspiration of palpable breast masses. Am J Surg. 145:1983;395.
14. Martin H., Ellis E. Biopsy by needle puncture and aspiration. Ann Surg. 92:1930;169-181.
15. Roberts J.C., Rainsbury R.M. 'Tactile sensation': a new clinical sign during fine needle aspiration of breast lumps. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 76:(Suppl 2):1994;136-138.
16. Kline T.S., Kline I.K. Guides to clinical aspiration biopsy - breast. 1989;Igaku-Shoin, New York.
17. National Cancer Institute Fine-Needle Aspiration of Breast Workshop Subcommittees. The uniform approach to breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol. 16:(Suppl 4):1997;295-311.
18. Kleinbaum D.G. Logistic regression. 1994;Springer Verlag, New York.
19. Hosmer D., Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 1989;Wiley Interscience, New York.
20. SAS version 8.02. 2001;SAS Institute, Cary (NC).
21. Sackett D.L., Haynes R.B., Guyatt G.H., Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 1991;Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
22. Metz C.E. ROCKIT, vol. 2002. Version 0.9B. 1998;University of Chicago, Chicago.
23. Goehring C., Morabia A. Epidemiology of benign breast disease, with special attention to histologic types. Epidemiol Rev. 19:1997;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 F.E., Kee K.L., Mark D.B. Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluation assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 15:1996;361-387.
26. Steyerberg E.W., Harrell F.E., Borsboom G.J.J.M., et al. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 54:2001;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. 90:1998;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. 28A:1992;1054-1058.
29. Concato J., Feinstein A.R., Holford T.R. The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med. 118:1993;201-210.
30. Albert A. On the use and computation of likelihood ratios in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem. 28:1982;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. 13:1992;155-172.
32. Irwig L. Modelling result-specific likelihood ratios. J Clin Epidemiol. 45:1992;1135-1140.