Trends in breast cancer screening and diagnosis

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Volumn 75, Issue SUPPL.1, 2008, Pages 2-9

  Rim, Alice ^a   Chellman Jeffers, Melanie ^a   Fanning, Alicia ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST SELF EXAMINATION; BREAST TUMOR; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 44449119872     PISSN: 08911150     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.75.Suppl_1.S2     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2007-2008. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, Inc. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/BCFF-Final.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2008.
2. Ries LAG, Harkins D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2003. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2006.
3. National Cancer Institute fact sheet: probability of breast cancer in American women. National Cancer Institute Web site. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Detection/probability-breast-cancer. Accessed January 18, 2008.
4. Thull DL, Vogel VG. Recognition and management of hereditary breast cancer syndromes. Oncologist 2004; 9:13-24.
5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2008.
6. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81:1879-1886.
7. Breast cancer risk assessment tool. An interactive tool for measuring the risk of invasive breast cancer. National Cancer Institute Web site. http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/. Accessed January 21, 2008.
8. Vetto J, Pommier R, Schmidt W, et al. Use of the "triple test" for palpable breast lesions yields high diagnostic accuracy and cost savings. Am J Surg 1995; 169:519-522.
9. 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; 131:967-974.
10. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53:141-169.
11. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:344-346.
12. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomized trials. Lancet 2002; 359:909-919.
13. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer 1995; 75:2507-2517.
14. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic Screening for Breast Cancer: The Health Insurance Plan Project and Its Sequelae, 1963-1986. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1988.
15. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1490-1499.
16. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up: a randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:305-312.
17. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. 14 years of followup from the Edinburgh randomized trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 1999; 353:1903-1908.
18. Eklund GW, Cardenosa G. The art of mammographic positioning. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:21-53.
19. Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783.
20. D'Orsi CJ, Newell MS. Digital mammography: clinical implementation and clinical trials. Semin Roentgenol 2007; 42:236-242.
21. Fajardo LL, Roberts CC, Hunt KR. Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer patients: should the masectomy site be imaged? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:953-955.
22. Eklund GW, Busby RC, Miller SH, Job JS. Improved imaging of the augmented breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151:469-473.
23. Mendelson EB. Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:107-138.
24. Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Haffty BG, et al. Mammographic findings of recurrent breast cancer after lumpectomy and radiation therapy: comparison with the primary tumor. Radiology 1996; 201:767-771.
25. ACR practice guideline for the performance of diagnostic mammography. American College of Radiology Web site. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/breast/diagnostic_mammography.aspx. Accessed January 14, 2008.
26. Sickles EA. Practical solutions to common mammographic problems: tailoring the examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151:31-39.
27. Jackson VP. The role of US in breast imaging. Radiology 1990; 177:305-311.
28. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1295-1303.
29. Liberman L. Breast MR imaging in assessing extent of disease. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006; 14:339-349.
30. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007; 244:356-378.
31. Flickinger FW, Allison JD, Sherry RM, Wright JC. Differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses by time-intensity evaluation of contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 1993; 11:617-620.
32. Chellman-Jeffers MR, Listinsky J, Dinunzio A, Lieber M, Rim A. Utility of second look ultrasound as an adjunct to contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. Paper presented at: American Roentgen Ray Society Meeting; May 4, 2006; Vancouver, BC. Abstract 269.
33. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Newman RW, Powell CM, Torosian MH, Rosato EF. MR imaging-guided localization and biopsy of breast lesions: initial experience. Radiology 1994; 193:97-102.
34. Liberman L. Percutaneous imaging-guided core breast biopsy: state of the art at the millennium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:1191-1199.
35. Fornage BD, Coan JD, David CL. Ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the breast and other interventional procedures. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:167-185.
36. Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: stereotactic automated large-core biopsies. Radiology 1991; 180:403-407.
37. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology 1994; 193:359-364.
38. Liberman L, Evans WP III, Dershaw DD, et al. Radiography of microcalcifications in stereotaxic mammary core biopsy specimens. Radiology 1994; 190:223-225.
39. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:75-89.