Short-interval follow-up mammography: Are we doing the right thing?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 95, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 418-419

  Kerlikowske, Karla ^a   Smith Bindman, Rebecca ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LYMPH NODE; MALIGNANT TRANSFORMATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PATIENT MONITORING; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROGNOSIS; SYMPTOM; TIME; TUMOR GROWTH; TUMOR VOLUME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037454232     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/95.6.418     Document Type: Editorial

References (20)

1. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, (VA): American College of Radiology; 1998. p. 94-5.
2. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463-8.
3. Sickles EA. Management of probably benign lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33:1123-30.
4. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184:409-14.
5. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991;178:155-8.
6. Duijm LE, Zaat JO, Guit GL. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions in general practice: the role of follow-up mammography. Br J Gen Pract 1998;48:1421-3.
7. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andrea L, Salas D, Ruiz-Perales F, Cuevas D, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001;219:475-83.
8. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:691-5.
9. Wolfe JN, Buck KA, Salane M, Parekh NJ. Xeroradiography of the breast: overview of 21,057 consecutive cases. Radiology 1987;165:305-11.
10. Apesteguia L, Pina L, Inchusta M, Mellado M, Franquet T, De Miguel C, et al. Nonpalpable, well-defined, probably benign breast nodule: mangagement by fine-needle aspiration biopsy and long-interval follow-up mammography. Eur Radiol 1997;7:1235-9.
11. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993;270:2444-50.
12. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis. Acad Radiol 1997;4:419-25.
13. Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Elmore JG, Gelfand AE, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1657-66.
14. Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Pettinger M, Chlebowski RT, Robbins JA, Lane DS, et al. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:429-36.
15. Taplin S, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K, Ernster V, Rosenberg R, Yankaskas B, et al. Concordance of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002;222:529-35.
16. Sickles EA. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999;213:11-4.
17. Rubin E. Six-month follow-up: an alternative view. Radiology 1999;213: 15-8; discussion, 19-21.
18. Hall FM. Follow-up of probably benign breast lesions. Radiology 2000;217:303-5.
19. Burnside E, Sickles EA, Sohlich R, Dee KE. The differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1173-7.
20. Sickles EA. False positive rate of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 1998;339:561-2.