Predicting biopsy outcome after mammography: What is the likelihood the patient has invasive or in situ breast cancer?

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 660-673

  Weaver, Donald L ^a   Vacek, Pamela M ^a   Skelly, Joan M ^a   Geller, Berta M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast imaging; Breast neoplasm; Ductal carcinoma in situ mammography; Invasive carcinoma; Risk prediction

Indexed keywords

HORMONE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALCIFICATION; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER INVASION; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MENOPAUSE; POPULATION RESEARCH; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREDICTION; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL MODEL; TUMOR BIOPSY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 23744499629     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2005.09.008     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Burns RP. Image-guided breast biopsy. Am J Surg 1997;173:9-11.
2. Hall JA, Murphy DC, Hall BR, Hall KA. Open surgical biopsy for nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities: still an option compared with core needle biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:1245-50.
3. 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.
4. Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G. Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med 1998;20: 396-403.
5. Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer 1990;62:1018-22.
6. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom PF. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:657-61.
7. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Feig SA, et al. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Illustrated BIRADS™. 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998.
8. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:35-40.
9. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999;211: 845-50.
10. Geller BM, Worden JK, Ashley JA, Oppenheimer RG, Weaver DL. Multipurpose statewide breast cancer surveillance system: the Vermont experience. J Registry Manage 1996;23:168-74.
11. Hilsenbeck SG. Quality control. In: Menck H, Smart C, eds. Central Cancer Registries: Design, Management, and Use. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994.
12. Osius G, Rojek D. Normal goodness-of-fit tests for multinomial models with large degrees of freedom. J Am Stat Assoc 1992;87:1145-52.
13. Rosenberg RD, Lando JF, Hunt WC, et al. The New Mexico Mammography Project: screening mammography performance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1991 to 1993. Cancer 1996;78: 1731-9.
14. Fuhrman GM, Cederbom GJ, Bolton JS, et al. Image-guided core-needle biopsy is an accurate technique to evaluate patients with nonpalpable imaging abnormalities. Ann Surg 1998;227: 932-9.
15. Liberman L. Percutaneous image-guided core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40:483-500.