Magentic resonance imaging of breast masses: Comparison with mammography

Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 381-387

  Chakraborti, K L ^a,b   Bahl, P ^a   Sahoo, M ^a   Ganguly, S K ^a   Oberoi, C ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND ALLIED SCIENCES   (India)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Fine needle aspiration; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASPIRATION BIOPSY; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SIZE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GALACTOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RADIOSENSITIVITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 31744450832     PISSN: 09713026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.29160     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Annual report, 1984. National cancer registry. A project of Indian council of medical research, New Delhi 1987.
2. National cancer registry programme, Biennial report 1988-1989, An epidemiological study, Indian council of medical research, New Delhi 1992.
3. Farewell VT, Bulbrook RD, Hayward JL. Risk factors in breast cancer: A prospective study in the island of Gnernsy, in early diagnosis of Breast cancer. New York: E. Grandmann and L. Beck Gustav Fisher verlag Stuttgart, 1978: 43-51, 1978.
4. The breast cancer digest. US deptt. of Health, Education and welfare. Public health service, NIH, National cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland - 202201. NIH Publication, 1979: 80-1691.
5. Nair MK, Sankaranarayanan R, Nair KS, et al. Overall survival from breast cancer in Kerala, India, in relation to the menstrual, reproductive and clinical factors. Cancer 1993; 71: 1791-6.
6. Schmitt EL, Threatt B. Characteristics of breast cancer in an incident cancer population. AJR 1984; 143: 402-406.
7. Baker LH. Breast cancer detection demonstration project: five year summary report. CA Cancer J Cline 1982; 32: 194-225.
8. Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R, Marvunac M, Sturmans F, Day NE. Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography: first results of the Nijmegen project, 1975-1981. Lancet 1984; 1: 1222-1224.
9. Jackson VP. The role of ultrasound in breast imaging. Radiology 1990; 177: 305-309.
10. Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Shepard MJ, Finkelstein SL, Marzoni FA. Sterotaxic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology 1994; 193: 91-95.
11. Hermann G. Janus C. Schwartz IS, Krivisky B. Bier S, Rabinowitz JG. Nonpalpable breast lesions: accuracy of prebiopsy mammographic diagnosis. Radiology 1987; 165: 323-226.
12. Robertson CL. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25, 788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations, Radiology 1993; 187: 75-79.
13. Ciatto S, Cataliotti L, Distante V. Nonpalpable lesions detected with mammography: review of 512 consecutive cases. Radiology 1987; 165: 99-102.
14. Kopans DB. Positive predictive value of mammography. AJR 1992; 158: 521-526.
15. Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, O'Laoide R, Hourihane JB, O'Higgins NJ. Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer. Cline Radiol 1994; 49: 123-125.
16. Lannin DR, Harris RP, Swanson FH, Edwards MS, Swanson MS, pories WJ. Difficulties in diagnosis of carcinoma of the breast in patients less than fifty year of age. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993; 177: 123-126.
17. Khalkhali I, Cutrone JA, Mena I, et al. The usefulness of scintimammography (SMM) in patients with dense breasts on mammogram [abstract]. J Nucl Med, 1995; 36: 52.
18. Madjar H, Makowiec U, Mundinger A, Du Bois A, Kommoss F, Schillinger H. Value of high resolution sonography in breast cancer screening. Ultraschall Med, 1994; 15: 20-23.
19. Harms Se, Flaming DP, Hesley KL, et al: MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance. Clinical experience with pathological correlation. Radiology 1993; 187: 493-501.
20. Flickinger FW, Allison JD, Sherry RM, et al. Differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses by time-intensity evaluation of contrast enhanced MRI. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1993; 11: 617-620.
21. Kopans DB. What is a useful adjunct to mammography ? Radiology 1986; 161: 560-561.
22. Joensuu H, Asola R, Holli K, Kumpulainen E, Nikkanen V, Parvinen LM. Delayed diagnosis and large size of breast cancer after a flase negative mammogram. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30: 1299-1302.
23. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276: 38.
24. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184: 613-617.
25. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Livolsi VA, Troupin RH, Suspicious breast lesion: MRI with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994; 190: 485-493.
26. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumour angiogenesis. Radiology 1996; 200: 639-649.
27. Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD. Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumours using a permeability model. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1995; 33: 564-568.
28. Muller-Schimpfle M, Ohmenhauser K, Sand J, et al. Dynamic 3D - MR mammography: is there a benefit of sophisticated evaluation of enhancement curves for clinical routine ? JMRI 1997; 7: 236-240.
29. Kaiser MA. MR Mammography. Radiology 1993; 33: 292-299.
30. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, Hilbertz T. Eiermann W. Permanetter W. MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 1989; 171: 95-103.
31. Yang Y, Glover GH, Van Geleren P, et al. Fast 3D functional magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T with spiral acquisition. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1996; 36: 620-626.