Triple test score: Difference between revisions
Pharmer1934 (talk | contribs) Added section on diagnostic value of fine-needle aspiration biopsy |
Mktthind13 (talk | contribs) added physical exam section and information about the sensitivity of a physical examination alone |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Cost == |
== Cost == |
||
The triple test score reduces cost for evaluating breast masses compared to traditional methods due to reducing the likelihood of people undergoing an excisional biopsy while still providing effective diagnoses<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Morris |first=Arden M. |last2=Flowers |first2=Christopher R. |last3=Morris |first3=Katherine T. |last4=Schmidt |first4=Waldemar A. |last5=Pommier |first5=Rodney F. |last6=Vetto |first6=John T. |date=2003 |title=Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of the Triple Test Score to Traditional Methods for Evaluating Palpable Breast Masses |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3768091 |journal=Medical Care |volume=41 |issue=8 |pages=962–971 |issn=0025-7079}}</ref>. |
The triple test score reduces cost for evaluating breast masses compared to traditional methods due to reducing the likelihood of people undergoing an excisional biopsy while still providing effective diagnoses<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Morris |first=Arden M. |last2=Flowers |first2=Christopher R. |last3=Morris |first3=Katherine T. |last4=Schmidt |first4=Waldemar A. |last5=Pommier |first5=Rodney F. |last6=Vetto |first6=John T. |date=2003 |title=Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of the Triple Test Score to Traditional Methods for Evaluating Palpable Breast Masses |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3768091 |journal=Medical Care |volume=41 |issue=8 |pages=962–971 |issn=0025-7079}}</ref>. |
||
== Physical Exam == |
|||
An overview of 11 different systemic reviews summarized the effectiveness of a clinical breast examination (CBE) as the sole method of screening for breast cancer by using sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value as measures of accuracy. 8 out of 11 reviews reported a sensitivity range between 40% to 69% while the other three had outlier values that extended the range from 28% to 85%.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ngan |first=Tran Thu |last2=Nguyen |first2=Nga T. Q. |last3=Van Minh |first3=Hoang |last4=Donnelly |first4=Michael |last5=O’Neill |first5=Ciaran |date=2020-11-09 |title=Effectiveness of clinical breast examination as a ‘stand-alone’ screening modality: an overview of systematic reviews |url=https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07521-w |journal=BMC Cancer |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=1070 |doi=10.1186/s12885-020-07521-w |issn=1471-2407 |pmc=PMC7653771 |pmid=33167942}}</ref> |
|||
== Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy == |
== Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy == |
||
Revision as of 17:38, 26 July 2023
This article is about a clinical scoring system for breast masses. For information about the triple test, also called triple screen, a prenatal test, see Triple test.
The triple test score (TTS) is a diagnostic tool for examining potentially cancerous breasts. Diagnostic accuracy of the triple test score is nearly 100%. Scoring includes using the procedures of physical examination, mammography and needle biopsy. If the results of a TTS are greater than five, an excisional biopsy is indicated.[1][citation needed]
Scoring
To obtain the triple test score, a number from 1 through 3 is assigned to each one of the procedures. A score of 1 is assigned to a benign test result, 2 applies to a suspicious test result, and 3 applies to a malignant result. The sum of the scores of all three procedures is the triple test score. A score of 3 to 4 is most likely benign, whereas a score of greater than 6 is possibly malignant.
There have been different inclusions for the components of the triple test score in the past, such as using the procedures of physical examination, mammography, and cytology. Other versions of the triple test score have included mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)[2].
Cost
The triple test score reduces cost for evaluating breast masses compared to traditional methods due to reducing the likelihood of people undergoing an excisional biopsy while still providing effective diagnoses[3].
Physical Exam
An overview of 11 different systemic reviews summarized the effectiveness of a clinical breast examination (CBE) as the sole method of screening for breast cancer by using sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value as measures of accuracy. 8 out of 11 reviews reported a sensitivity range between 40% to 69% while the other three had outlier values that extended the range from 28% to 85%.[4]
Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy
Over a review of 46 studies using sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy, fine-needle aspiration biopsy proved to be a very accurate yet minimally invasive diagnostic method for evaluating breast malignancy. With the exclusion of unsatisfactory samples, fine-needle aspiration biopsy sensitivity proportion was 0.927 and the specificity proportion was 0.948. However, in the unsatisfactory samples, the pooled sensitivity proportion was 0.920, and the pooled specificity proportion was 0.768.[5]
References
- ^ AT Still University, School of osteopathic medicine, lecture on breast biopsies. October 2012.
- ^ Egyed, Zsofia; Járay, Balázs; Kulka, Janina; Péntek, Zoltán (2009-06-01). "Triple Test Score for the Evaluation of Invasive Ductal and Lobular Breast Cancer". Pathology & Oncology Research. 15 (2): 159–166. doi:10.1007/s12253-008-9083-3. ISSN 1532-2807.
- ^ Morris, Arden M.; Flowers, Christopher R.; Morris, Katherine T.; Schmidt, Waldemar A.; Pommier, Rodney F.; Vetto, John T. (2003). "Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of the Triple Test Score to Traditional Methods for Evaluating Palpable Breast Masses". Medical Care. 41 (8): 962–971. ISSN 0025-7079.
- ^ Ngan, Tran Thu; Nguyen, Nga T. Q.; Van Minh, Hoang; Donnelly, Michael; O’Neill, Ciaran (2020-11-09). "Effectiveness of clinical breast examination as a 'stand-alone' screening modality: an overview of systematic reviews". BMC Cancer. 20 (1): 1070. doi:10.1186/s12885-020-07521-w. ISSN 1471-2407. PMC 7653771. PMID 33167942.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Yu, Ying-Hua; Wei, Wei; Liu, Jian-Lun (2012-01-25). "Diagnostic value of fine-needle aspiration biopsy for breast mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMC cancer. 12: 41. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-41. ISSN 1471-2407. PMC 3283452. PMID 22277164.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)