Sonographic characteristics of breast cancers detected by supplemental screening US: Comparison with breast cancers seen on screening mammography

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 51, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 969-976

  Cho, Nariya ^a   Moon, Woo Kyung ^a   Chang, Jung Min ^a   Yi, Ann ^a   Koo, Hye Ryoung ^a   Han, Boo Kyung ^b  

^a Seoul National University Hospital   (South Korea)

^b Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

BI RADS; Breast neoplasms; Diagnosis; Ductal carcinoma in situ

Indexed keywords

BI-RADS; BREAST CANCER; BREAST IMAGING; BREAST NEOPLASM; CONTROL GROUPS; DATA SYSTEMS; DUCTAL CARCINOMA IN SITU; EARLY BREAST CANCER; IMAGING FEATURES; MAMMOGRAPHIC; MEAN AGES; RISK FACTORS; SONOGRAPHIC;

TUMORS; ULTRASONIC IMAGING; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

DIAGNOSIS;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SOUTH KOREA;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 77958036714     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/02841851.2010.515615     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-360 (Pubitemid 34977137)
2. Duffy SW, Tabá r L, Chen HH, Holmqvist M, Yen MF, Abdsalah S, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties: a collaborative evaluation. Cancer 2002;95:458-469
3. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276:33-38
4. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. Cancer 1995;76:626-630
5. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, D ü nser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical signifi cance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:921-927
6. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist A, DeKoekkoek-Doll M, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classifi cation with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:325-336
7. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-649
8. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that infl uence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175
9. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D'Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent wholebreast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1675-1679
10. Crystal P, Strano S, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:177-182
11. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS ™ ) ultrasound. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
12. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1260-1265
13. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385-391
14. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS ™ ). Fourth edition. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
15. 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
16. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213: 889-894
17. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 2007;244:87-93.
18. Tilanus-Linthorst M, Verhoog L, Obdeijn IM, Bartels K, Menke-Pluymers M, Eggermont A, et al. A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent falsenegative mammography. Int J Cancer 2002;102:91-95
19. Mesurolle B, Kadoch L, El-Khoury M, Lisbona A, Dendukuri N, Foulkes WD. Sonographic features of breast carcinoma presenting as masses in BRCA gene mutation carriers. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26:817-824
20. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, B ö hm-V é lez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-2163
21. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, Pisano ED, Ascher SM, Weatherall PT, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007;244:381-388
22. Moon WK, Myung JS, Lee YJ, Park IA, Noh DY, Im JG. US of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 2002;22: 269-280
23. Schoonjans JM, Brem RF. Sonographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with ultrasonographically guided large core needle biopsy: correlation with mammographic and pathologic findings. J Ultrasound Med 2000;19:449-457
24. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifi cations. Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:941-948