Radiological findings of screen-detected cancers in a multi-centre randomized, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40 to 48 years

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 61, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 784-788

  Evans, A J ^a   Kutt, E ^b   Record, C ^c   Waller, M ^d   Moss, S ^d  

^a NOTTINGHAM CITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b Avon Breast Cancer Screening Unit   (United Kingdom)

^c STOKE MANDEVILLE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TUMOR CALCINOSIS; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33747066835     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.04.013     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Moss S., Thomas I., Evans A., et al. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years. Br J Cancer 92 (2005) 949-954
2. Wolfe J.N. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37 (1976) 2468-2492
3. De Nunzio M.C., Evans A.J., Pinder S.E., et al. Correlations between the mammographic features of prevalent round screen detected invasive breast cancer and pathological prognostic factors. Breast 6 (1997) 146-149
4. Duncan K.A., Needham G., Gilbert F.J., et al. Incident round cancers: what lessons can we learn?. Clin Radiol 53 (1998) 29-32
5. Daly C.A., Apthorp L., and Field S. Second round cancers: how many were visible on the first round of the UK National Breast Screening Programme, three years earlier?. Clin Radiol 53 (1998) 25-28
6. Warren R.M.L., Young J.R., McLean L., et al. Radiology review of the UKCCCR breast screening frequency trial: potential improvements in sensitivity and lead time of radiological signs. Clin Radiol 58 (2003) 128-132
7. Sibbering D.M., Burrell H.C., Evans A.J., et al. Mammographic sensitivity in women under 50 presenting symptomatically with breast cancer. Breast 4 (1995) 127-129
8. Erbas B., Amos A., Fletcher A., et al. Incidence of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ in a screening programme by age: should older women continue screening?. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13 (2004) 1569-1573
9. Ugnat A.M., Xie L., Morriss J., et al. Survival of women with breast cancer in Ottawa, Canada: variation with age, stage, histology, grade and treatment. Br J Cancer 90 (2004) 1138-1143
10. Lamb P.M., Perry N.M., Vinnicombe S.J., et al. Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic features and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol 55 (2000) 40-44
11. Ferranti C., Coopmans de Yoldi G., Biganzoli E., et al. Relationship between age mammographic features and pathological tumour characterisics in non-palpable breast cancer. Br J Radiol 73 (2000) 698-705
12. Evans A.J., Wilson A.R.M., Burrell H.C., et al. Mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present on previous mammography. Clin Radiol 54 (1999) 644-646
13. Cornford E.J., Evans A.J., James J.J., et al. The pathological and radiological features of screen detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions. Clin Radiol 60 (2005) 1182-1187