Malignancy in ACR 3 category mammographic lesions, masses and calcifications;Les opacités et les microcalcifications de la classification ACR 3 liées à un cancer

Journal de Radiologie

Volumn 85, Issue 12 II, 2004, Pages 2111-2122

  Travade, A ^a   Isnard, A ^a   Bagard, C ^a   Bouchet, F ^a  

^a Centre de Senologie   (France)

Author keywords

ACR; BI RADS; Biopsy; Breast cancer; Follow up; Mammotome; Needle core biopsy

Indexed keywords

BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CALCIFICATION; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; RADIODIAGNOSIS; REVIEW; SCREENING;

EID: 12244298934     PISSN: 02210363     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0221-0363(04)97790-6     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. tm). Third Edition. Reston [VA]: American College of Radiology; 1998.
2. tm illustré Édition française 2001.
3. ANAES. Conduite à tenir diagnostique devant une image mammographique infraclinique anormale. Paris. 1998.
4. Barreau B, Stines J. Conduite à tenir dans les lésions mammaires de catégorie BI-RADS 3 de la classification ACR. J Le Sein 2002;12:102-11.
5. Barreau B, Tastet S, Stinès J, Picot V, Guibert-Tamisier L, Brault I, et al. Une étude exploratoire sur le vécu psychologique des femmes lors de la surveillance des anomalies probablement bénignes: à propos de 50 cas. Gyneco Obstet Fertil 2003;31:629-38.
6. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR 2000;174:1769-77.
7. Berg VA, D'Orsi KJ, Jackson VP, Bassett LW, Beam GA, Lewis RS, Crewson PH. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI - RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 2002;224:871-880.
8. Calafat J-F, Vuillemin J, Henrot P, Troufléau Ph, Boyer B, Stines J, et al. Macrobiopsies assistées par aspiration guidées par stéréotaxie dans les foyers de microcalcifications. Expérience de Luxembourg et de Nancy. J Le Sein 2003;13:191-200.
9. Caplan LS, Blackman D, Nadel M, Monticciolo DL. Coding mammograms using the classification "probably benign finding-short interval follow-up suggested". AJR 1999;172:339-42.
10. Chapellier C, Balu-Maestro C, Amoretti N, Bleuse A, Birtwisle-Peyrottes. Macrobiopsies mammaires assistées par aspiration. J Le Sein 2002;12:225-34.
11. Gulsun M, Demirkazik FB, Ariyurek M. Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to Brest Imaging Reporting and Data System criteria and LeGal's classification. Eur J Radiol 2003;47:227-31.
12. Hagay CH, Cherel P, de Maulmont Ch, Ouhioun O, Nodiot P, Plantet MM. Conduite à tenir devant des microcalcifications. J Le Sein 2001;11:76-99.
13. Hall FM. Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions. (Réponse à EL Rosen) Radiology 2002;225:918-9.
14. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O'Shaughnessy, Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening. Radiology 203;226:494-503.
15. Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S, White E, Urban N. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. AJR 2002;179:15-20.
16. Leung JWT, Sickles EA. Multiple bilateral masses detected on screening mammography: assessment of need for recall imaging. AJR 2000;175:23-9.
17. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Acredolo CR, Liston SE. Short-interval follow-up mammography versus immediate core biopsy of benign breast lesions: assessment of patient stress. AJR 1998;171:55-8.
18. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999;211:845-50.
19. Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove MR, Wells WA, Carney PA. Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network. Radiology 2000;217:832-40.
20. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Scott Soo M. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002;223:221-228.
21. Rosen EL. Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions. (Réponse à FM Hall) Radiology, 2002;225:919-20.
22. Sickles E. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999;213:11-4.
23. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee CE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-9.
24. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, Ernester VL, RD, Yankaskas BC, et al. Concordance of_Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002;222:539-535.
25. Travade A, Isnard A, Bagard C, Bouchet F, Chouzet S, Gaillot A, Vilmant R. Macrobiopsies stéréotaxiques par système à aspiration 11-G: à propos de 249 patientes. J Radiol 2002;83:1063-71.
26. Travade A, Isnard A, Bouchet F, Bagard C. Lésions mammaires impalpables et macrobiopsies stéréotaxiques avec le Mammotome 11G: faut-il opérer après diagnostic d'hyperplasie canalaire atypique? (Sousmis à publication).
27. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR 2002;179:691-695.
28. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, et al. Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR 2001;176:1241-8.
29. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo 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.