Cited by 38Breast Lesions and CarcinomasBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesAI in cancer detection

Triple assessment in the diagnosis of breast cancer in Kashmir

Open access
Jan, Masooda, Mattoo, Javeed Ahmad, Salroo, Nazir Ahmad, Ahangar, Shahnawaz·2010·Indian Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background Although the diagnosis of breast cancer is suggested on clinical examination, the degree of suspicion is variable. Currently a combination of three tests, i.e. clinical examination, radiological imaging (mammography, ultrasonography) and pathology called as triple assessment test is used to accurately diagnose all palpable breast lumps. Together they give sensitivity of 99%. The triple assessment is taken as positive if any of the three components is positive and negative only if all of its components are negative for malignancy. Materials and methods This study was conducted in the Department of Surgery, Government Medical College, Srinagar, Kashmir over a period of 3 years from June 2005 to May 2008. A total of 200 patients with a breast lump were selected irrespective of age. A detailed history, focused clinical examination, radiological imaging and fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) were used as diagnostic tools for screening of the patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate accuracy of triple assessment in the preoperative diagnosis of patients with breast carcinoma. Results The sensitivity and specificity of all the modalities used in triple assessment when combined together was 100% and 99.3%, respectively. The concordance for the triple assessment was 99.3%, positive predictive value was 93.3%, negative predictive value was 100%, sensitivity was 100% and specificity was 99.3%. p value was significant (0.000). Conclusion We conclude that triple assessment is a very useful diagnostic tool to evaluate patients with breast lumps and to detect patients with breast cancers with an overall accuracy of 99.3%.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12262-010-0030-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • FNAB has been further implemented in numerous LMICs for diagnosis and guiding clinical management of palpable breast lesions.

    “With the success of the FNAB in diagnosis and guiding clinical management of palpable breast lesions, this biopsy method has been further implemented in numerous LMICs.[30][31][32][33][34][35]”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 14 · Cited by 38

Authors
Jan, M., Mattoo, J. A., Salroo, N. A., & Ahangar, S.
Affiliations
  • Government Medical College (IN)
  • Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
Corresponding author
Jan, Masooda
Venue
Indian Journal of Surgery
Published
2010-04
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
97-103
ISSN
  • 0972-2068 (ISSN-L)
  • 0973-9793
OpenAlex
W2033520236
Cited by
38
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Indian Journal of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
triple assessment, breast cancer diagnosis, breast mass, mammography, breast ultrasound, fine needle aspiration cytology, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, preoperative diagnosis, Kashmir

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review