Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts

Radiologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 845-851

  Berg, Wendie A ^a  

^a Study Chair ACRIN Protocol 6666   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CALCIFICATION; CANCER CENTER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CARCINOMA; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARENCHYMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SCREENING TEST;

BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 4444295038     PISSN: 00338389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.04.003     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. L. Tabar, B. Vitak, and H.H. Chen The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up Radiol Clin North Am 38 2000 625 651
2. J.S. Michaelson, M. Silverstein, and J. Wyatt Predicting the survival of patients with breast carcinoma using tumor size Cancer 95 2002 713 723
3. D.L. Page, and M.D. Lagios Pathology and clinical evolution of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast Cancer Lett 86 1994 1 4
4. S.A. Feig Ductal carcinoma in situ: implications for screening mammography Radiol Clin North Am 38 2000 653 668
5. M.F. Yen, L. Tabar, B. Vitak, R.A. Smith, H.H. Chen, and S.W. Duffy Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening Eur J Cancer 39 2003 1746 1754
6. S.W. Duffy, L. Tabar, and B. Vitak The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease Eur J Cancer 39 2003 1755 1760
7. K. Kerlikowske, D. Grady, J. Barclay, E.A. Sickles, and V. Ernster Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography JAMA 276 1996 33 38
8. E.A. Morris Screening breast MRI in high-risk women ARRS Categorical Course Syllabus 2004 139 144
9. L. Liberman, E.A. Morris, C.L. Benton, A.F. Abramson, and D.D. Dershaw Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in high-risk women Cancer 98 2003 377 388
10. C. Perlet, P. Schneider, and B. Amaya MR-Guided vacuum biopsy of 206 contrast-enhancing breast lesions Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 174 2002 88 95
11. L. Liberman, E.A. Morris, D.D. Dershaw, C.M. Thornton, K.J. Van Zee, and L.K. Tan Fast MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experience AJR Am J Roentgenol 181 2003 1283 1293
12. P.B. Gordon, and S.L. Goldenberg Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review Cancer 76 1995 626 630
13. W. Buchberger, A. Niehoff, P. Obrist, P. DeKoekkoek-Doll, and M. Dunser Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography Semin Ultrasound CT MR 21 2000 325 336
14. S.S. Kaplan Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue Radiology 221 2001 641 649
15. T.M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J.H. Newhouse Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations Radiology 225 2002 165 175
16. P. Crystal, S.D. Strano, S. Shcharynski, and M.J. Koretz Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts AJR Am J Roentgenol 181 2003 177 182
17. I. Leconte, C. Feger, and C. Galant Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 2003 1675 1679
18. M.S. Soo, J.A. Baker, and E.L. Rosen Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 2003 941 948
19. W.A. Berg Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 2003 1225 1228
20. M.H. Gail, L.A. Brinton, and D.P. Byar Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually J Natl Cancer Inst 81 1989 1879 1886
21. M.H. Gail, and J. Benichou Validation studies on a model for breast cancer risk J Natl Cancer Inst 86 1994 573 575
22. M.H. Gail, and M.H. Greene Gail model and breast cancer Lancet 355 2000 1017
23. E.B. Claus, N. Risch, and W.D. Thompson The calculation of breast cancer risk for women with a first degree family history of ovarian cancer Breast Cancer Res Treat 28 1993 115 120
24. E.B. Claus, N. Risch, and W.D. Thompson Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer: implications for risk prediction Cancer 73 1994 643 651
25. W.A. Berg Breast ultrasonography: cystic lesions and probably benign findings ARRS Categorical Course Syllabus 2004 95 102
26. American College of Radiology Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS): ultrasound 1st edition 2003 American College of Radiology Reston, VA
27. E.A. Sickles Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient Radiology 192 1994 439 442
28. X. Varas, F. Leborgne, and J.H. Leborgne Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography Radiology 184 1992 409 414
29. I. Vizcaino, L. Gadea, and L. Andreo Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography Radiology 219 2001 475 483
30. A.T. Stavros, D. Thickman, C.L. Rapp, M.A. Dennis, S.H. Parker, and G.A. Sisney Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions Radiology 196 1995 123 134
31. J.W. Leung, and E.A. Sickles Multiple bilateral masses detected on screening mammography: assessment of need for recall imaging AJR Am J Roentgenol 175 2000 23 29
32. G. Rahbar, A.C. Sie, and G.C. Hansen Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation Radiology 213 1999 889 894
33. D.B. Kopans Sonography should not be used for breast cancer screening until its efficacy has been proven scientifically AJR Am J Roentgenol 182 2004 489 491
34. D.D. Dershaw Mammographic screening of the high-risk woman Am J Surg 180 2000 288 289
35. D. Farria, and S.A. Feig An introduction to economic issues in breast imaging Radiol Clin North Am 38 2000 825 842