Usefulness and limitations of the Japan Mammography Guidelines for the categorization of microcalcifications

Breast Cancer

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 291-297

  Uematsu, Takayoshi ^a   Kasami, Masako ^a   Yuen, Sachiko ^a  

^a SHIZUOKA CANCER CENTER   (Japan)

Author keywords

BI RADS; Distribution; Japan Mammography Guidelines; Mammography; Morphology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; CLASSIFICATION; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; JAPAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; JAPAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 59149089902     PISSN: 13406868     EISSN: 18804233     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-008-0033-4     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Morrow M, Schnitt SJ, Harris JR. Ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasive carcinoma. In: Harris JR, editor. Disease of the breast. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2000. p. 383-401.
2. Bassett LW. Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:93-105.
3. The Committee of Mammography Guideline (Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society of Radiological Technology): Mammography Guideline 2nd ed. Igaku Syoin, Tokyo, 2004 (in Japanese).
4. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. In: Reston VA, editor. American College of Radiology, 2003.
5. Pijnappel RM, Peeters PH, Hendriks JH, Mali WP. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol. 2004;77:312-4. (Pubitemid 38579115)
6. Fondrinier E, Lorimier G, Guerin-Boblet V, Bertrand AF, Mayras C, Dauver N. Breast microcalcifications: multivariate analysis of radiologic and clinical factors for carcinoma. World J Surg. 2002;26:290-6. (Pubitemid 36920404)
7. Rubin E. Six-month follow-up: an alternative view. Radiology. 1999;213:15-8. (Pubitemid 29470399)
8. Hall FM. Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions. Radiology. 2002;225:918-9.
9. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1997;205:417-22.
10. Berg WA, Arnoldus CL, Teferra E, Bhargavan M. Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology. 2001;221:495-503. (Pubitemid 33043436)
11. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:35-40. (Pubitemid 28308645)
12. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Xia JQ, Ghate S, Baker JA. Computer-aided detection of amorphous calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:887-92. (Pubitemid 43899517)
13. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463-8.
14. D'Orsi CJ. The American College of Radiology mammography lexicon: an initial attempt to standardize terminology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:779-80.
15. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology. 1999;211:845-50. (Pubitemid 29249488)
16. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter-and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769-77. (Pubitemid 30346755)
17. Stomper PC, Connolly JL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and tumor subtype. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159:483-5.
18. Evans A, Pinder S, Wilson R et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:1307-11. (Pubitemid 24187477)
19. Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schreer I et al. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 2,874 patients. Cancer. 2004;100:245-51. (Pubitemid 38063631)
20. Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E. Evaluation of breast imaging reporting and data system category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice. Cancer. 2004;100:710-4. (Pubitemid 38176847)
21. Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E. Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB). Ann Oncol. 2003;15:450-4.
22. Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Dynamic contrastenhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103:269-81. (Pubitemid 46944506)