Performance of combined clinical mammography and needle biopsy: A nationwide study from Denmark

APMIS

Volumn 114, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 884-892

  Jensen, Allan ^a   Rank, Fritz ^b   Dyreborg, Uffe ^c   Severinsen, Niels ^b   Nielsen, Susanne ^b   Lynge, Elsebeth ^a   Vejborg, Ilse ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b Mental Health Center Glostrup   (Denmark)

^c ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Denmark; Mammography; Needle biopsy; Performance

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURGERY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENMARK; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, FINE-NEEDLE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COHORT STUDIES; DENMARK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33845710464     PISSN: 09034641     EISSN: 16000463     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2006.apm_408.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Danish National Board of Health. The Cancer Register 2001. Copenhagen: Danish National Board of Health. 2005. [In Danish].
2. Jensen A, Vejborg I, Severinsen N, Nielsen S, Rank F, Mikkelsen GJ, et al. Performance of clinical mammography. A nationwide study from Denmark. Int J Cancer 2006;119:183-91.
3. Hermansen C, Skovgaard PH, Poulsen H, Jensen J, Langfeldt B, Steenskov V, et al. Diagnostic reliability of combined physical examination, mammography, and fine-needle puncture ("triple-test") in breast tumors. A prospective study. Cancer 1987;60:1866-71.
4. Vetto J, Pommier R, Schmidt W, Wachtel M, Du-Bois P, Jones M, et al. Use of the "triple test" for palpable breast lesions yields high diagnostic accuracy and cost savings. Am J Surg 1995;169:519-22.
5. Vetto JT, Pommier RF, Schmidt WA, Eppich H, Alexander PW. Diagnosis of palpable breast lesions in younger women by the modified triple test is accurate and cost-effective. Arch Surg 1996;131:967-72.
6. Morris A, Pommier RF, Schmidt WA, Shih RL, Alexander PW, Vetto JT. Accurate evaluation of palpable breast masses by the triple test score. Arch Surg 1998;133:930-4.
7. Butler JA, Vargas HI, Worthen N, Wilson SE. Accuracy of combined clinical-mammographiccytologic diagnosis of dominant breast masses. A prospective study. Arch Surg 1990;125:893-5.
8. Steinberg JL, Trudeau ME, Ryder DE, Fishell E, Chapman JA, McCready DR, et al. Combined fine-needle aspiration, physical examination and mammography in the diagnosis of palpable breast masses: their relation to outcome for women with primary breast cancer. Can J Surg 1996;39:302-11.
9. Rubin M, Horiuchi K, Joy N, Haun W, Read R, Ratzer E, et al. Use of fine needle aspiration for solid breast lesions is accurate and cost-effective. Am J Surg 1997;174:694-6.
10. Martelli G, Pilotti S, Coopmans de Yoldi G, Viganotti G, Fariselli G, Lepera P, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of physical examination, mammography, fine needle aspiration cytology (triple-test) in solid breast lumps: an analysis of 1708 consecutive cases. Tumori 1990;76:476-9.
11. Kaufman Z, Shpitz B, Shapiro M, Rona R, Lew S, Dinbar A. Triple approach in the diagnosis of dominant breast masses: combined physical examination, mammography, and fine-needle aspiration. J Surg Oncol 1994;56:254-7.
12. Negri S, Bonetti F, Capitanio A, Bonzanini M. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration in the management of breast lesions: comparison of specificity and sensitivity with clinical examination, mammography, echography, and thermography in 249 patients. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:4-8.
13. Azzarelli A, Guzzon A, Pilotti S, Quagliuolo V, Bono A, Di Pietro S. Accuracy of breast cancer diagnosis by physical, radiologic and cytologic combined examinations. Tumori 1983; 69:137-41.
14. Morris KT, Pommier RF, Morris A, Schmidt WA, Beagle G, Alexander PW, et al. Usefulness of the triple test score for palpable breast masses; discussion 1012-3. Arch Surg 2001;136:1008-12.
15. Liberman L. Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:791-807.
16. Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998;208:717-23.
17. Liberman L. Percutaneous image-guided core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40:483-500.
18. Hyser MJ, Vanuno D, Mallesh A, Dill K, Calandra J, Cronin T, et al. Changing patterns of care for occult breast lesions in a community teaching hospital. Am Surg 2000;66:438-42.
19. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. DBCG Guidelines 2005. Copenhagen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. 2005. [In Danish].
20. Available at: www.patobank.dk
21. American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BIRADSA® Atlas). Reston: American College of Radiology. 2003.
22. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, 3rd ed. Bruxelles: European Commision. 2002.
23. Storm HH. The Danish Cancer Registry, a self-reporting national cancer registration system with elements of active data collection. IARC Sci Publ 1991;95:220-36.
24. Day NE, Williams DR, Khaw KT. Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer 1989;59:954-58.
25. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-9.
26. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Catarzi S, Morrone D, Rosselli DT. Proficiency test for screening mammography: results for 117 volunteer Italian radiologists. J Med Screen 1999;6:149-51.
27. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000;215:563-7.
28. Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Caudry DJ, Sneige N, Frable WJ, Berg WA, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V. Radiology 2001;219:785-92.
29. Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Ljung BM, Grady D. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:274-84.
30. Ljung BM, Drejet A, Chiampi N, Jeffrey J, Goodson WH 3rd, Chew K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy is determined by physician training in sampling technique. Cancer 2001;93:263-8.
31. Padel AF, Coghill SB, Powis SJ. Evidence that the sensitivity is increased and the inadequacy rate decreased when pathologists take aspirates for cytodiagnosis. Cytopathology 1993;4:161-5.
32. Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Tsimikas J, Sneige N, Frable WJ, Gatsonis CA, et al. Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: The Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigators. Cancer 1998;82:679-88.
33. Verkooijen HM. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: results of a multicenter prospective study with 95% surgical confirmation. Int J Cancer 2002;99:853-9.
34. Tabbara SO, Frost AR, Stoler MH, Sneige N, Sidawy MK. Changing trends in breast fine-needle aspiration: results of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Survey. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;22:126-30.
35. Shannon J, Douglas-Jones AG, Dallimore NS. Conversion to core biopsy in preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions: is it justified by results? J Clin Pathol 2001;54:762-5.