Identification, biopsy, and treatment of poorly understood premalignant, in situ, and indolent low-grade cancers: Are we be coming victims of our own success?

Radiology

Volumn 254, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 655-659

  Hall, Ferris M ^a  

^a BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASPIRATION BIOPSY; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GRADING; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LUNG BIOPSY; LUNG CANCER; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERCUTANEOUS BIOPSY; PRECANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; THYROID NODULE; TUMOR BIOPSY;

BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; NEOPLASMS; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; THYROID NEOPLASMS;

EID: 77950164508     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09092100     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Duffy SW, Tabár L, Vitak B, et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 2003;39(12):1755-1760.
2. Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Page DL. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 2005;103(12):2481-2484.
3. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 2009;302 (15);1685-1692.
4. Burstein HJ, Polyak K, Wong JS, Lester SC, Kaelin CM. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med 2004;350(14):1430-1441.
5. Kuhl CK. Why do purely intraductal cancers enhance on breast MR images? Radiology 2009;253(2):281-283.
6. Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Shepard MJ, Finkelstein SI, Marzoni FA Jr. Stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology 1994;193(1):91-95.
7. Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164(5):1111-1113.
8. Cohen MA. Cancer upgrades at excisional biopsy after diagnosis of atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: some reasons why. Radiology 2004;231(3):617-621.
9. Betsill WL Jr, Rosen PP, Lieberman PH, Robbins GF. Intraductal carcinoma: longterm follow-up after treatment by biopsy alone. JAMA 1978;239(18):1863- 1867.
10. Pinder SE, Ellis IO. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) - current definitions and classification. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5(5):254-257.
11. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009;253(2):353-358.
12. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16(12):1133-1143.
13. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3, 184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179(2):463-468.
14. Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Sickles EA. Short-interval follow-up mammography: are we doing the right thing? J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(6):418-419.
15. Jackman RJ, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: can some lesions be defined as probably benign after stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, eliminating the recommendation for surgical excision? Radiology 2002;224(2):548-554.
16. Jackman RJ. Controversies in percutaneous biopsies. Presented at the 9th postgraduate course of the Society of Breast Imaging, Colorado Springs, Colo, April 26-29, 2009.
17. Hall FM. Impressions don't count [letter]. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169(2):598.
18. Kassirer JP. Our stubborn quest for diagnostic certainty: a cause of excessive testing. N Engl J Med 1989;320(22):1489-1491.
19. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003;290(16):2129-2137.
20. Hall FM. Computer-aided mammography screening [letter]. N Engl J Med 2009;360(8):836.
21. Cronan JJ. Thyroid nodules: is it time to turn off the US machines? Radiology 2008;247(3):602-604.
22. Wong-You-Cheong J. Invited commentary. RadioGraphics 2008;28(7):1887- 1889.
23. Harach HR, Franssila KO, Wasenius VM. Occult papillary carcinoma of the thyroid:a "normal"finding in Finland - a systematic autopsy study. Cancer 1985;56(3):531-538.
24. Godoy MC, Naidich DP. Subsolid pulmonary nodules and the spectrum of peripheral adenocarcinomas of the lung: recommended interim guidelines for assessment and management. Radiology 2009;253(3):606-622.
25. Mori M, Rao SK, Popper HH, Cagle PT, Fraire AE. Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the lung: a probable forerunner in the development of adenocarcinoma of the lung. Mod Pathol 2001;14(2):72-84.
26. Niho S, Yokose T, Suzuki K, Kodama T, Nishiwaki Y, Mukai K. Monoclonality of atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the lung. Am J Pathol 1999;154(1):249-254.
27. Kelloff GJ, Choyke P, Coffey DS; Prostate Cancer Imaging Working Group. Challenges in clinical prostate cancer: role of imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(6):1455-1470.
28. Barry MJ. Screening for prostate cancer: the controversy that refuses to die. N Engl J Med 2009;360(13):1351-1354.
29. Fuchs VR, Sox HC Jr. Physicians' views of the relative importance of thirty medical innovations. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001;20(5):30-42.
30. Rabin RC. Benefits of mammogram under debate in Britain. New York Times. March 30, 2009:D5.
31. Kolata G. In shift, cancer society sees risks in screenings. New York Times. October 21, 2009:A1.
32. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716-726.
33. Kerlikowske K. Evidence-based breast cancer prevention:the importance of individual risk. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):750-752.
34. Berlin L, Hall FM. More mammography muddle: the clash of emotions. politics, science, and cost. Radiology (in press).