Finding early invasive breast cancers: A practical approach

Radiology

Volumn 248, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 61-76

  Harvey, Jennifer A ^a   Nicholson, Brandi T ^a   Cohen, Michael A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL FEATURE; DEFORMITY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEMALE; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 47249101570     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2481060339     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen H, Prevost TC. The natural history of breast cancer. Cancer 1999;86:449-462.
2. Tabar L, Chen H, Duffy SW, et al. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study. Lancet 2000;355:429-433.
3. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
4. Harvey JA. Unusual breast cancers: useful clues to expanding the differential diagnosis. Radiology 2007;242:683-694.
5. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Parker RA. False-positive screening mammograms: effect of immediate versus later work-up on patient stress. Radiology 2001;218:247-253.
6. Raza S, Rosen MP, Chorny K, Mehta TS, Hulka CA, Baum JK. Patient expectations and costs of immediate reporting of screening mammography: talk isn't cheap. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:579-583.
7. Burnside ES, Park JM, Fine JP, Sisney GA. The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:790-796.
8. Ghate SV, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R, Gimenez EI, Rosen EL. Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms. Radiology 2005;235:31-35.
9. Houn F, Brown ML. Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology 1994;190:209-215.
10. Hendrick RE, Cutter GR, Berns EA, et al. Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:433-438.
11. Harvey JA, Fechner RE, Moore MM. Apparent ipsilateral decrease in breast size on mammography: a sign of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Radiology 2000;214:883-889.
12. Berg JW, Hutter RV. Breast cancer. Cancer 1995;75(1 suppl):257-269.
13. Hilleren DJ, Andersson IT, Lindholm K, Linnell FS. Invasive lobular carcinoma: mammographic findings in a 10-year experience. Radiology 1991;178:149-154.
14. Tabar L, Dean PB. Teaching atlas of mammography. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Thieme, 2001.
15. Giess CS, Keating DM, Osborne MP, Ng YY, Rosenblatt R. Retroareolar breast carcinoma: clinical, imaging, and histopathologic features. Radiology 1998;207:669-673.
16. Bassett LW, Hirbawi IA, DeBruhl N, Hayes MK. Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box. Radiology 1993;188:803-806.
17. Lee EH, Wylie EJ, Bourke AG, Bastiaan De Boer W. Invasive ductal carcinoma arising in a breast hamartoma: two case reports and a review of the literature. Clin Radiol 2003;58:80-83.
18. Breucq C, Verfaillie G, Perdaens C, Vermeiren B, Stadnik T. Lobular carcinoma located in a breast hamartoma. Breast J 2005;11:508-509.
19. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-244.
20. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781-786.
21. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005;236:451-457.
22. Pearson KL, Sickles EA, Frankel SD, Leung JW. Efficacy of step-oblique mammography for confirmation and localization of densities seen on only one standard mammographic view. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:745-752.
23. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123-134.
24. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220:13-30.
25. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427-437.
26. Deurloo EE, Tanis PJ, Gilhuijs KGA, et al. Reduction in the number of sentinel lymph node procedures by preoperative ultrasonography of the axilla in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1068-1073.
27. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463-468.
28. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002;222:529-535.
29. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002;223:221-228.