Breast Cancer 2008 - State of the Art, Trends, Controversis: The Diagnostic View;Mammakarzinom 2008 - State of the art, trends, kontroversen: Aus der sicht des diagnostikers

Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde

Volumn 68, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 708-716

  Schulz Wendtland, Rüdiger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ERLANGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Clinical examination; Mammography; MRI; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY;

EID: 49649087208     PISSN: 00165751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1038709     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Duda VF, Schulz-Wendtland R. Mammadiagnostik - Komplementärer Einsatz aller Verfahren. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2004
2. Spratt JA, von Fournier D, Spratt JS, Weber EE. Decelerating growth and human breast cancer. Cancer 1993; 71: 2013-2019
3. Spratt JA, von Fournier D, Spratt JS, Weber EE. Mammographic assessment of human breast cancer growth and duration. Cancer 1993; 71: 2020-2026
4. Schulz-Wendtland R, Krämer S, Döinghaus K, Säbel M, Lang N, Bautz W. Significance of roentgen mammography for breast carcinoma screening. Röntgenpraxis 1997; 50: 103-109
5. Fischer U. ACR BI-RADS™. Stuttgart: Thieme-Verlag, 2006
6. S3-Leitlinie Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland, 1. Aktualisierung 2008. München: W. Zuckschwerdt-Verlag, 2008, www.senologie.org 2008
7. S3-Leitlinie Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, 1. Aktualisierung. München: W. Zuckschwerdt-Verlag, 2008, www.senologie.org 2008
8. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Fourth Edition, European Communities, 2006
9. Gerber B. Umweltfaktoren und Brustkrebsrisiko. Gynäkologe 2002; 35: 561-569
10. Miller MD, Marty MA, Broadwin R et al. The association between exposure to environment tobacco smoke and breast cancer: A review by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Preventive Medicine 2007; 44: 93-106
11. Schatzkin A, Kipnis V. Could exposure problems give us wrong answers to nutrition and cancer questions? J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 1564-1565
12. Tempfer C, Bentz E. Brustkrebsprävention in der klinischen Praxis - Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2006; 66: 1134-1142
13. Van Gils CH, Peeters PH, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB et al. Consumption of vegetables and risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 183-193
14. Willett WC, Hunter DJ, Stampfer MJ et al. Dietary fat and fiber in relation to risk of breast cancer. An 8-year follow-up. JAMA 1992; 268: 2037-2044
15. Hackshaw AK, Paul EA. Breast self-examination and death from breast cancer: a meta-analysis. British Journal of Cancer 2003; 88: 1047-1053
16. Saltzstein SL. Potential limits of physical examination and breast-examination in detecting small cancers of the breast. An unselected population-based study of 1302 cases. Cancer 1984; 54: 1443-1446
17. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1445-1457
18. Qualitätssicherungsvereinbarung nach § 135 Abs. 2 SGB V zur kurativen Mammographie. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 25.12.2006; 51-52: 3504-3514
19. Nimmo LJ, Alston LA, McFadyen AK. The influence on technical recall in the UK Breast Screening Programme: are pain, compression force, and compressed breast thickness contributing factors? Clinical Radiology 2007; 62: 439-446
20. Martin KE, Helvie MA, Zhou C et al. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology 2006; 240: 656-665
21. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 168-175
22. Jung H. Assessment of usefulness and risk of mammography screening with exclusive attention to radiation risk. Radiologe 2001; 41: 385-395
23. KVB - Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Bayerns. Merkblatt vom 16.12.2002
24. Cowen AR, Launders JH, Jadav M et al. Visibility of microcalcifications in computed and screen-film mammography. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42: 1533-1548
25. Tabar L, Dean PB. Teaching Atlas of Mammography. Stuttgart: Thime-Verlag, 2001
26. Schulz-Wendtland R, Becker N, Bock K, Anders K, Bautz W. Mammography screening. Radiologe 2007; 47: 359-369
27. Pisano ED, 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
28. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Bautz W. Clinical results of digital mammography. Radiologe 2005; 45: 255-263
29. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wacker T, Bautz W. Aktueller Stand und weitere Perspektiven in der digitalen Mammographie. Radiologe 2008; 48: 324-334
30. S1-Leitlinie Mammasonographie, www.senologie.org 2001
31. Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Schulz-Wendtland R. BI-RADS-Analogue DEGUM Criteria for Findings in Breast Ultrasound - Consensus of the DEGUM Committee on Breast Ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 2006; 27: 374-379
32. Perry MN et al. Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease (EUSOMA Working Party). European Journal of Cancer 2001; 37: 159-172
33. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al. Lesion detection and characterization in a breast US phantom: results of the ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Radiology 2006; 239: 693-702
34. Fasching P, Schulz-Wendtland R, Beckmann MW et al. Staging von Mammakarzinomen BI-RADS™ 4/5: Hohe Brustdrüsendichte (Dichte 3 und 4) beeinträchtigt Größeneinschätzung (n = 434). EJR 2006; 60: 398-404
35. Schulz-Wendtland R, Bock K, Aichinger U et al. 13 MHz versus 7, 5 MHz in der Mammasonographie - Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Multicenterstudie (n = 819). Ultraschall in der Medizin 2005; 26: 209-215
36. Lell M, Wenkel E, Schulz-Wendtland R et al. 3-D Ultrasound in high speed core cut biopsy of breast lesions. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2004; 25: 126-130
37. Cho N, Moon WK, Chan JH et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses (n = 150). Radiology 2006; 240: 26-32
38. Weismann C, Hergan K. Aktueller Stand der 3D-/4D- Volumensonographie der Mamma. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2007; 28: 273-282
39. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Roubidoux MA et al. Malignant and benign breast masses on 3DUS volumetric images (n = 101). Radiology 2007; 242: 716-724
40. Chang RF, Huang SF, Moon WK et al. Solid breast masses: neural network analysis of vascular features at three-dimensional power Doppler US for benign or malignant classification (n = 221). Radiology 2007; 243: 56-62
41. Martin KE. Tissue Harmonic Imaging. Radiology 2008 in press
42. Thomas A, Fischer T, Frey H et al. Real-time elastography - an advanced method of ultrasound: first results in 108 patients with breast lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 335-340
43. Ricci P, Cantisani V, Pagliara E et al. Benigne und maligne Brusttumoren: Aussagekraft des Real-Time kontrastverstärkten Ultraschalls gegenüber MRT (n = 50). Ultraschall in der Medizin 2007; 28: 57-62
44. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P et al. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrsound CT MR 2000; 21: 325-336
45. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221: 641-649
46. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. 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 2002; 225: 165-175
47. Kuhl C. The current status of breast imaging. Part 1. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007; 244: 356-378
48. Kuhl C. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 2007; 244: 672-691
49. AG Mammadiagnostik der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft. Empfehlungen zur MR-Mammographie. RöFo 2005; 177: 474-475
50. Schrading S, Kuhl CK. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 2008; 246: 58-70
51. Krämer S, Schulz-Wendtland R, Hagedorn K et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and its role in the diagnosis of multicentric breast cancer. Anticancer Res 1998; 18: 2163-2164
52. Liberman L. Breast MR imaging in assessing extent of disease. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006; 14: 339-349
53. 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
54. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 2007; 370: 485-492
55. Kuhl CK. Breast MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007; 15: 315-320
56. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 201: 586-597
57. Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schulz-Wendtland R et al. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 2 874 patients. Cancer 2004; 100: 245-251
58. Kaiser WA, Pfleiderer SO, Baltzer PA. MRI-guided interventions of the breast. J Magn Res Imaging 2008; 27: 347-355
59. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27 825 patients evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225: 165-175
60. Heusinger K, Löhberg C, Schulz-Wendtland R et al. Assessment of breast cancer tumor size depends on method, histopathology and tumor size itself. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94: 17-23