Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 180, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 1225-1228

  Berg, Wendie A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GREENEBAUM CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EXAMINATION; CARCINOMA IN SITU; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST;

EID: 0037404722     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801225     Document Type: Note

References (28)

1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 part 1):347-360
2. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:625-651
3. Tabar L, Chen HH, Duffy SW, et al. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study. Lancet 2000;355:429-433
4. Stomper PC, Connolly JL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic calcification and tumor subtype. AJR 1992;159:483-485
5. Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR 1996;167:1261-1265
6. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Emster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38
7. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1445-1457
8. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76:626-630
9. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US - diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998;207:191-199
10. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:325-336
11. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-649
12. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175
13. Michaelson JS, Silverstein M, Wyatt J, et al. Predicting the survival of patients with breast carcinoma using tumor size. Cancer 2002;95:713-723
14. Schnall MD. Application of magnetic resonance imaging to early detection of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2001;3:17-21
15. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215:267-279
16. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Bartels KC, de Koning HJ, Oudkerk M. First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;63:53-60
17. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1095-1102
18. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammogaphy, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3524-3531
19. Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, et al. US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 1993;187:507-511
20. Mendelson EB, Tobin CE. Critical pathways in using breast US. RadioGraphics 1995;15:935-945
21. Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998;208:717-723
22. Thurfjell EL, Lindgren JA. Population-based mammography screening in Swedish clinical practice: prevalence and incidence screening in Uppsala County. Radiology 1994;193:351-357
23. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000;215:563-567
24. Sohlich RE, Sickles EA, Burnside ES, Dee KE. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. AJR 2002;178:681-686
25. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-869
26. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123-134
27. Mendelson EB, Berg WA, Merritt CR. Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon. BI-RADS: ultrasound. Semin Roentogenol 2001;36:217-225
28. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 2002;225:176-181