Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: Initial results

European Radiology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 16-24

  Teertstra, Hendrik J ^a   Loo, Claudette E ^a   Van Den Bosch, Maurice A A J ^a   Van Tinteren, Harm ^a   Rutgers, Emiel J T ^a   Muller, Sara H ^a   Gilhuijs, Kenneth G A ^a  

^a ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast; Cancer; Detection; Mammography; Tomosynthesis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PILOT PROJECTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 76949108982     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1523-2     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. SE Singletary C Allred P Ashley, et al. 2003 Staging system for breast cancer: revisions for the 6th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual Surg Clin North Am 83 803 819 10.1016/S0039-6109(03)00034-3 12875597
2. MG Wallis MT Walsh JR Lee 1991 A review of false negative mammography in a symptomatic population Clin Radiol 44 13 15 10.1016/S0009-9260(05)80218-1 1:STN:280:DyaK3MzjvFeqtw%3D%3D 1873944
3. EC Coveney JG Geraghty R O'Laide, et al. 1994 Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer Clin Radiol 49 123 125 10.1016/S0009-9260(05)83454-3 1:STN:280:DyaK2c7ntVGltw%3D%3D 8124890
4. H Joensuu R Asola K Holli, et al. 1994 Delayed diagnosis and large size of breast cancer after a false negative mammogram Eur J Cancer 30 1299 1302 10.1016/0959-8049(94)90177-5 (Pubitemid 24322066)
5. SB Chew M Hughes C Kennedy D Gillett H Carmalt 1996 Mammographically negative breast cancer at the Strathfield Breast Centre Aust N Z J Surg 66 134 137 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1996.tb01140.x 1:STN:280:DyaK283gslOrsg%3D%3D 8639127
6. HA Moss PD Britton CD Flower, et al. 1999 How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in a symptomatic population? Clin Radiol 54 676 682 10.1016/S0009-9260(99)91090-5 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2FgslCjtQ%3D%3D 10541394 (Pubitemid 29479186)
7. TM Kolb J Lichy JH Newhouse 2002 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 225 165 175 10.1148/radiol.2251011667 12355001
8. K Flobbe AM Bosch AG Kessels, et al. 2003 The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer Arch Intern Med 163 1194 1199 10.1001/archinte.163.10.1194 12767956 (Pubitemid 36613072)
9. SR Benson J Blue K Judd JE Harman 2004 Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer Am J Surg 188 381 385 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.06.032 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2crgsFaitg%3D%3D 15474430 (Pubitemid 39330540)
10. WA Berg L Gutierrez MS NessAiver WB Carter M Bhargavan RS Lewis OB Ioffe 2004 Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer Radiology 233 830 849 10.1148/radiol.2333031484 15486214
11. IG Murphy MF Dillon AO Doherty EW McDermott G Kelly N O'Higgins AD Hill 2007 Analysis of patients with false negative mammography and symptomatic breast carcinoma J Surg Oncol 96 457 463 10.1002/jso.20801 17929256 (Pubitemid 350044387)
12. PJ Kneeshaw LW Turnbull PJ Drew 2003 Current applications and future direction of MR mammography Br J Cancer 88 4 10 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600713 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s%2Fks12rtA%3D%3D 12556951 (Pubitemid 36241210)
13. CK Kuhl 2007 Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications Radiology 244 672 691 10.1148/radiol.2443051661 17709824 (Pubitemid 47292079)
14. S Orel 2008 Who should have breast magnetic resonance imaging evaluation? J Clin Oncol 26 703 11 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.3594 18258977 (Pubitemid 351264382)
15. CJ D'Orsi MS Newell 2007 Digital mammography: clinical implementation and clinical trials Semin Roentgenol 42 236 242 10.1053/j.ro.2007.06.004 17919526 (Pubitemid 47494505)
16. EA Rafferty 2007 Digital mammography: novel applications Radiol Clin North Am 45 831 843 10.1016/j.rcl.2007.06.005 17888772 (Pubitemid 47411641)
17. ED Pisano C Gatsonis E Hendrick, et al. 2005 Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group: diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening N Engl J Med 353 1773 1783 10.1056/NEJMoa052911 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhtFKrtLnN 16169887 (Pubitemid 41549889)
18. ED Pisano RE Hendrick MJ Yaffe, et al. 2008 Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST Radiology 246 376 383 10.1148/radiol.2461070200 18227537
19. JM Park EA Franken Jr M Garg LL Fajardo LT Niklason 2007 Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications Radiographics 27 S231 S240 10.1148/rg.27si075511 18180229
20. JM Lewin L Niklason 2007 Advanced applications of digital mammography: breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography Semin Roentgenol 42 243 252 10.1053/j.ro.2007.06.006 17919527 (Pubitemid 47494507)
21. SP Poplack TD Tosteson CA Kogel HM Nagy 2007 Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography Am J Roentgenol 189 616 623 10.2214/AJR.07.2231 (Pubitemid 47328544)
22. LT Niklason BT Christian LE Niklason, et al. 1997 Digital breast tomosynthesis in breast imaging Radiology 205 399 406 1:STN:280: DyaK1c%2FhvFCgsQ%3D%3D 9356620
23. WF Good GS Abrams VJ Catullo DM Chough MA Ganott CM Hakim D Gur 2008 Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study AJR Am J Roentgenol 190 4 865 869 10.2214/AJR.07.2841 18356430 (Pubitemid 351571506)
24. I Andersson DM Ikeda S Zackrisson M Ruschin T Svahn P Timberg A Tingberg 2008 Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings Eur Radiol 18 12 2817 2825 10.1007/s00330-008-1076-9 18641998
25. Hendrick RE, Bassett L, Botsco MA et al (1999) Mammography quality control manual. American College of Radiology, Reston
26. JM Boone 1999 Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy x-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment 1 Radiology 213 23 37 1:STN:280: DC%2BD3c%2FgvVWmsw%3D%3D 10540637
27. L Liberman JH Menell 2002 Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) Radiol Clin North Am 40 409 430 10.1016/S0033-8389(01)00017-3 12117184 (Pubitemid 34765031)
28. CJ D'Orsi MS Newell 2007 BI-RADS decoded: detailed guidance on potentially confusing issues Radiol Clin North Am 45 751 763 10.1016/j.rcl.2007.06.003 17888766 (Pubitemid 47410059)
29. SC Chen AK Carton M Albert EF Conant MD Schnall AD Maidment 2007 Initial clinical experience with contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis Acad Radiol 14 229 238 10.1016/j.acra.2006.10.022 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXlvFGmtL8%3D 17236995 (Pubitemid 46108599)
30. R Kaas R Kroger JH Hendriks, et al. 2004 The significance of circumscribed malignant mammographic masses in the surveillance of BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers Eur Radiol 14 1647 1653 10.1007/s00330-004-2307-3 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2cvhtFentg%3D%3D 15083333 (Pubitemid 39232896)