Consensus Review: A Method of Assessment of Calcifications That Appropriately Undergo a Six-Month Follow-up

Academic Radiology

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 621-629

  Kuzmiak, Cherie M ^a   Dancel, Ria ^a   Pisano, Etta ^a,b   Zeng, Donglin ^c   Cole, Elodia ^a,b   Koomen, Marcia A ^a   McLelland, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast Calcifications; Mammography; Probably Benign; Short Interval Follow up

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST DUCT; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL EXPERT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGY; SEX RATIO; TUMOR BIOPSY;

BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CONSENSUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PROGNOSIS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33646046156     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2006.01.042     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Monsees B.S. Evaluation of breast microcalcifications. Rad Clin North Am 33 5 (1995) 1109-1121
2. Bassett L.W. Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Rad Clin North Am 30 1 (1992) 93-105
3. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS™). 4th edition. (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
4. Eagan R.I., McSweeney M.B., and Sewell C.W. Intramammary calcifications without an associated mass in benign and malignant diseases. Radiology 137 (1980) 1-7
5. Roses D.F., Harris M.N., Gorsten F., and Gumport S.L. Biopsy for microcalcifications detected by mammography. Surgery 87 (1980) 248-252
6. Hall F.M., Storella J.M., Silverstone D.Z., and Wyshak G. Nonpalpable breast lesions. recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. Radiology 167 (1988) 353-358
7. Fonseca R., Hartman L.C., Peterson I.A., Donohue J.H., et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Annu of Int Med 127 11 (1997) 1013-1022
8. Silverstein M.J. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Annu. Rev. Med 51 (2000) 17-32
9. Swallow C.J., Van Zee K.J., Sacchini V., and Borgan P.I. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. progress and controversy. Curr Probl Surg 33 7 (1996) 556-591
10. Howard J. Using mammography for cancer control. An unrealized potential. Cancer 37 1 (1987) 33-48
11. Sickles E.A. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions. results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179 (1991) 463-468
12. Varas X., Leborgne, and Leborgne J.H. Non-palpable probably benign lesions. role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 184 (1992) 409-414
13. Hall F.M. Follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 173 (1989) 284-285
14. Sickles E.A. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Rad Clin North Am 33 6 (1995) 1123-1130
15. Sickles E.A. Probaly Benign Breast Lesions. When should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol?. Radiology 213 (1999) 11-14
16. Sickles E.A. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 33 (1995) 1123-1130
17. Sickles E.A. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions. results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179 (1991) 463-468
18. Rubin E. Six-month follow-up. An alternative view. Radiology 213 (1999) 15-18
19. Berg W.A., Arnoldus C.A., Teferra E., and Bhargavan M. Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications. pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 221 (2001) 495-503
20. Berg W.A., Mrose H.E., and Ioffe O.B. Atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ at core-needle breast biopsy. Radiology 218 (2001) 503-509
21. Jackman R.J., Burbank F., Parker S.H., Evans W.P., et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions. determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218 (2001) 497-502
22. Liberman L., Cohen M.A., Dershaw D.D., Abramson A.F., et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sterotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions. an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR 164 (1995) 1111-1113
23. Rosen E.L., Baker J.A., and Soo M. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 223 (2002) 221-228
24. Pijnappel R.M., Peeters P.H., Hendricks J.H., and Mali W.P. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. BJR 77 (2004) 312-314
25. Sickles E.A., and Parker S.H. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy in the management of probably benign lesions (letter). Radiology 190 (1994) 313-314
26. Thurfjell E.L., Lernevall K.A., and Taube A.A. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 191 (1994) 241-244
27. Dinnes J., Moss S., Melia J., Blanks R., Song F., and Kleijnen J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening. findings of a systematic review. The Breast 10; 6 (2000) 455-463
28. Duijm L.E., Groenewoud J.H., Hendricks J.H., and de Koning H.J. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in the Netherlands. effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 231 (2004) 564-570