Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: Is overdiagnosis an issue for adiologists?

Breast Cancer Research

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2006, Pages

  Warren, Ruth ^a   Eleti, Asha ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MALPRACTICE; RADIOGRAPHY; STANDARDS; UNITED KINGDOM;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALPRACTICE; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS;

EID: 34247607645     PISSN: 14655411     EISSN: 1465542X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/bcr1396     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Moss SM: Overdiagnosis and over treatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials of breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 2005, 7:230-234.
2. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC: The natural history of breast carcinoma: What have we learned from screening? Cancer 1999, 86:449-462.
3. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Carney PA, Geller BM, Urban N, Dignan MB, et al.: Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002, 222:529-535.
4. Welch H, Black W: Using autopsy series to estimate the disease "reservoir" for ductal carcinoma in situ of breast: How much more breast cancer can we find? Ann Intern Med 1997, 127 1023-1028.
5. Tabar L, Tony Chen HH, Amy Yen MF, Tot T, Tung TH, Chen LS, Chiu YH, Duffy SW, Smith RA: Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14- mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004, 101:1745-1759.
6. Erbas B, Provenzano E, Armes J, Gertig D: The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: A review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005 [Epub ahead of print].
7. Evans A, Blanks R: Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ? Clin Radiol 2002, 57 1086-1089.
8. Warren R, Allgood P, Hunnam G, Godward S, Duffy S: An audit of assessment procedures in women who develop breast cancer after a negative result. J Med Screen 2004, 11:180-186.
9. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D'Orsi C, et al.: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breastcancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1773-1783.
10. Birdwell R, Bandodkar P, Ikeda D: Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005, 236:451-457.
11. Khoo L, Taylor P, Given-Wilson R: Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: Prospective study. Radiology 2005, 237:444-449.
12. Heywang-Kobrunner S, Schreer I, Decker T, Bocker W: Interdisciplinary consensus on the use and technique of vacuumassisted stereotactic breast biopsy. Eur J Radiol 2003, 47: 232-236.
13. Buchanan C, Morris E, Dorn P, Borgen P, Van Zee K: Utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005, 12:1045-1053.
14. Viehweg P, Bernerth T, Kiechle M, Buchmann J, Heinig A, Koelbl H, Laniado M, Heywang-Kobrunner SH: MR-guided intervention in women with a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 2006, 57 81-89.
15. Sneige N, Lim S, Whitman G, Krishnamurthy S, Sahin A, Smith T, Stelling CB: Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis by directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Considerations for surgical excision. Am J Clin Pathol 2003, 119:248-253.
16. Domenighetti G, D'Avanzo B, Egger M, Berrino F, Perneger T, Mosconi P, Zwahlen M: Women's perception of the benefits of mammography screening: Population-based survey in four countries. Int J Epidemiol 2003, 32:816-821.
17. Clinical guidelines for breast cancer screening assessment [http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/ assessment.html]
18. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, Wang H, Thoresen S, Eriksen L, Bjorndal H, Braaten A, Bjurstam N: Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: Retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2005, 237 437-443.
19. Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Cutter GR, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Abraham LA, Fosse JS, Carney PA: Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology 2005, 236:37-46.
20. Mandelblatt J, Saha S, Teutsch S, Hoerger T, Siu AL, Atkins D, Klein J, Helfand M; Cost Work Group of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 65 years: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2003, 139:835-842.
21. Lakhani SR, Jacquemier J, Sloane JP, Gusterson BA, Anderson TJ, van de Vijver MJ, Farid LM, Venter D, Antoniou A, Storfer-Isser A, et al.: Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1138-1145.
22. Watson E, Henderson B, Brett J, Bankhead C, Austoker J: The psychological impact of mammographic screening on women with a family history of breast cancer: A systematic review. Psychooncology 2005, 14:939-948.