Breast self-examination: defining a cohort still in need.

BACKGROUND: The value of breast self-examination (BSE) to detect early breast cancer is controversial. METHODS: Within an institutional review board-approved prospective study, 147 high-risk women were enrolled from 2004 to 2007. Yearly clinical examination, BSE teaching, and mammography were performed simultaneously followed by interval breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Women underwent additional BSE teaching at 6 months. Women reporting a mass on BSE underwent clinical evaluation. RESULTS: Fourteen breast cancers were detected in 12 women. BSE detected 6/14 breast cancers versus 6/14 detected by MRI and 2/14 by mammography. Of 24 masses detected by BSE, 6/24 were malignant. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of BSE to detect breast cancer were 58.3%, 87.4%, and 29.2%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of a Breast Image Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score of >or=4 on MRI were 66.7%, 88.9%, and 34.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BSE detects new breast cancers in high-risk women undergoing screening mammogram, CBE, and yearly breast MRI.

Reproducibility of random periareolar fine needle aspiration in a multi-institutional Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Random periareolar fine needle aspiration (RPFNA) is a research technique developed to assess short-term breast cancer risk in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Although there is increasing acceptance of RPFNA, neither the reproducibility nor the inter-institutional compatibility of RPFNA has been established. To address these key limitations, the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) Prevention Group tested the reproducibility of RPFNA in a multi-institutional cross-sectional study. METHODS: Sixty-three high-risk women from five CALGB institutions (Duke, Ohio State, Roswell Park, Dana Farber, and Vermont) underwent RPFNA from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Duplicate bilateral RPFNA was performed on each woman by a single investigator on a single day. Masood Cytology Index score was assessed by a single blinded cytopathologist. RESULTS: There was a high degree of statistical agreement in the Masood Cytology Index scores of duplicate RPFNA samples from the same breast, with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.8312 (P < 0.0001). Importantly, although there was agreement in duplicate samples from the same breast, there was lack of agreement between duplicate samples from the opposite breast. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional study shows that RPFNA is a highly reproducible measure of breast cytology in a cooperative group cross-sectional trial. RPFNA did not show a high degree of agreement between breasts, suggesting that breast cancer risk and progression may occur at different rates in individual breasts from a single woman. These studies provide proof-of-principle for future RPFNA-based cooperative group prevention studies.