• G Legendre, N Guilhen, C Nadeau, A Brossard, and R Fauvet.
• Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, CHU d'Angers, 4, rue Larrey, 49933 Angers cedex 01, France; CESP-Inserm, U1018, équipe 7, genre, santé sexuelle et reproductive, université Paris Sud, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. Electronic address: g_legendre@hotmail.com.
• J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2015 Dec 1; 44 (10): 904-12.

PurposeThe aim of the study was to assess the diagnostic value of physical examination, radiologic explorations and percutaneous procedures of the breast in the exploration of a non-inflammatory palpable mass, in order to propose guidelines.MethodA systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Cochrane library databases. International guidelines in French and English language were also consulted until April 30th 2015.ResultsPhysical examination of a non-inflammatory palpable breast mass is not sufficient to eliminate a breast cancer (LE2). Mammography alone has a sensitivity between 70 and 95% for the diagnosis of breast cancer (LE3). Echography alone has a sensitivity of 98 to 100% for the diagnosis of breast cancer (LE2). The core needle biopsy has a better sensitivity and specificity than the fine-needle aspiration for breast cancer diagnosis (LE2). The association of mammography and 2D echography presents excellent sensitivity and negative predictive value (close to 100 %) to exclude a breast cancer (LE3). A double evaluation using mammography and echography is recommended in the exploration of a non-inflammatory palpable breast mass (grade B).Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…