Electropotential measurements as a new diagnostic modality for breast cancer

Lancet

Volumn 352, Issue 9125, 1998, Pages 359-363

  Cuzick, Jack ^a   Holland, Roland ^b   Barth, Volker ^c   Davies, Richard ^d   Faupel, Mark ^e   Fentiman, Ian ^f   Frischbier, H J ^g   LaMarque, J L ^h   Merson, Mirella ⁱ   Sacchini, Virgilio ^j   Vanel, Daniel ^k   Veronesi, Umberto ^j  

^a IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND   (United Kingdom)

^b National Expert and Training Centre   (Netherlands)

^c Hospital Esslingen   (Germany)

^d HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e SpectRx Inc   (United States)

^f GUY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^h Inst Montpellier D'Imagerie M   (France)

ⁱ NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^j EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

^k INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EPITHELIUM; BREAST TUMOR; CELL PROLIFERATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; DEPOLARIZATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREMENOPAUSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0032146307     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10002-2     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. 1 Sterns EE. Age-related breast diagnosis. Can J Surg 1992; 35: 41-45.
2. 2 Standertskjold-Nordenstam CG, Svinhufvud U. Mammography of symptomatic breasts: a report on 1119 consecutive patients. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1980; 69: 48-53.
3. 3 Cole P, Elwood MJ, Kaplan SD. Incidence rates and risk factors of benign breast neoplasms. Am J Epidemiol 1978; 108: 112-20.
4. 4 Hermansen C, Skovgaard PH, Jensen J, et al. Diagnostic reliability of combined physical examination, mammography, and fine-needle puncture ("triple-test") in breast tumour: a prospective study. Cancer 1987; 60: 1866-71.
5. 5 Green B, Dowley A, Turnbull LS, Smith PA, Leinster SJ, Winstanleyn JH. Impact of fine-needle aspiration cytology, ultrasonography and mammography on open biopsy rate in patients with benign breast disease. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 1509-11.
6. 6 Layfield LJ, Chrischilles EA, Cohen MB, Bottles K. The palpable breast nodule: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternate diagnostic approaches. Cancer 1993; 72: 1642-51.
7. 7 Hardy JR, Powles TJ, Judson I, et al. How many tests are required in the diagnosis of palpable breast abnormalities. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1990; 2: 148-52.
8. 8 Weiss BA, Ganepola GA, Freeman HP, Hsu Y, Faupel ML. Surface electrical potentials as a new modality in the diagnosis of breast lesions: a preliminary report. Breast Dis 1994; 7: 91-98.
9. 9 Faupel ML, Hsu Y. Dedicated systems for surface electropotential evaluation in the detection and diagnosis of neoplasia. In: Dixon JM, ed. Electropotentials in the clinical assessment of breast neoplasia. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1996: 37-44.
10. 10 Binggeli R, Weinstein RC. Membrane potentials and sodium channels: hypotheses for growth regulation and cancer formation based on changes in sodium channels and gap junctions. J Theor Biol 1986; 123: 377-401.
11. 11 Marino AA, Iliev IG, Schwalke MA, Gonzalez E, Marler KC, Flanagan CA. Association between cell membrane potential and breast cancer. Tumour Biol 1994; 15: 82-89.
12. 12 Davies RJ, Weidema WF, Sandle GI, Palmer LI, Deschner EE, DeCosse JJ. Sodium transport in a mouse model of colonie cancer. Cancer Res 1987; 47: 4646-50.
13. 13 Goller DA, Weidema WF, Davies RJ. Transmural electrical potential as an early marker in colon cancer. Arch Surg 1986; 121: 345-50.
14. 14 Capko D, Zhuravkov A, Davies RJ. Transepithelial depolarization in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996; 41: 230 (abstr).
15. 15 Slaughter DP, Southwick HW, Smejkal W. "Field cancerization" in oral squamous epithelium: clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer 1954; 6: 963-68.
16. 16 Gallager HS, Martin JE. Early phases in the development of breast cancer. Cancer 1969; 24: 1170-78.
17. 17 Dickhaut M, Schreer J, Frischbier HJ, Merson M. The value of BBE in the assessment of breast lesions. In: Dix on JM, ed. Electropotentials in the clinical assessment of breast neoplasia. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1996: 63-69.
18. 18 Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med 1985; 4: 87-90.
19. 19 Urban-Horth JS. Computer intensive statistical methods. London: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
20. 20 Gordenne W, Colin C, Pelzer A, Beeckman P. Les limites de lexamen radio-clinique dans le diagnostic des petitis cancers du sein: a propos de 27 cas ignores. (Limitations of clinical and radiological examination in the diagnosis of small breast cancers: 27 missed cases [author's trans].) J Belge Radiol 1981; 64: 339-42.
21. 21 Hasselgren PO, Hummel RP, Georgian-Smith D, Fieler M. Breast biopsy with needle localization: accuracy of specimen x-ray and management of missed lesions. Surgery 1993; 114: 836-40.
22. 22 Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1493-99.
23. 23 Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 209-13.
24. 24 Egglin TKP, Feinstein AR. Context bias: a problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996; 276: 1752-55.
25. 25 Peer PGM, Verbeek ALM, Straatman H, Hendricks JHCL, Holland R. Age-specific sensitivities of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996; 38: 153-60.
26. 26 Sibbering DM, Burrell HC, Evans AJ, et al. Mammographic sensitivity in women under 50 years presenting symptomatically with breast cancer. Breast 1995; 4: 127-29.
27. 27 Brand IR, Sapherson DA, Brown TS. Breast imaging in women under 35 with symptomatic breast disease. Br J Radiol 1993; 6: 394-97.