On the frontline of screening for breast cancer

Seminars in Oncology

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 119-127

  D'Orsi, Carl J ^a   Newell, Mary S ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREEN FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; STEREO DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOSYNTHESIS;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79952156022     PISSN: 00937754     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement Ann Intern Med 151 2009 716 726
2. C.R. Smart, R.E. Hendrick, J.H. Rutledge 3rd, and R.A. Smith Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years Current evidence from randomized controlled trials Cancer 75 1995 1619 1626
3. A. Coldman, N. Phillips, L. Warren, and L. Kan Breast cancer mortality after screening mammography in British Columbia women Int J Cancer 120 2007 1076 1080 (Pubitemid 46214308)
4. Effect of mammographic service screening on stage at presentation of breast cancers in Sweden Cancer 109 2007 2205 2212
5. R.D. Rosenberg, B.C. Yankaskas, and L.A. Abraham Performance benchmarks for screening mammography Radiology 241 2006 55 66 (Pubitemid 44433335)
6. R.E. Hendrick, E.D. Pisano, and A. Averbukh Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial Am J Roentgenol 194 2010 362 369
7. M.A. Ganott, J.H. Sumkin, and J.L. King Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer? Radiology 238 2006 793 800 (Pubitemid 43289909)
8. D.L. Page, W.D. Dupont, L.W. Rogers, R.A. Jensen, and P.A. Schuyler Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15-25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy Cancer 76 1995 1197 1200
9. D.L. Page, W.D. Dupont, L.W. Rogers, and M. Landenberger Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only Cancer 49 1982 751 758 (Pubitemid 12165434)
10. M.F. Yen, L. Tabar, B. Vitak, R.A. Smith, H.H. Chen, and S.W. Duffy Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening Eur J Cancer 39 2003 1746 1754 (Pubitemid 36897612)
11. R.M. Nishikawa, G.E. Mawdsley, A. Fenster, and M.J. Yaffe Scanned-projection digital mammography Med Physics 14 1987 717 727 (Pubitemid 18021182)
12. M. Yaffe, R. Nishikawa, A. Maidment, and A. Fenster Development of a digital mammography system Proc SPIE 914 1988 182 188
13. S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, H. Ved, S.P. Baker, and C.J. D'Orsi Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images Radiology 225 2002 801 807 (Pubitemid 35387120)
14. S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, and S. Vedantham Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system Nuclear Instr Methods Physics Res A 533 2004 560 570
15. W. Que, and J.A. Rowlands X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: inherent spatial resolution Med Physics 22 1995 365 374
16. H.G. Chotas, J.T. Dobbins 3rd, and C.E. Ravin Principles of digital radiography with large-area, electronically readable detectors: a review of the basics Radiology 210 1999 595 599 (Pubitemid 29124014)
17. S.I.W. Arakawa, K. Kohda, and T. Suzuki Improvement of image quality in CR mammography by detection of emissions from dual sides of an imaging plate 3977 2000 SPIE Bellingham, WA 590 600
18. J.M. Lewin, R.E. Hendrick, and C.J. D'Orsi Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations Radiology 218 2001 873 880 (Pubitemid 32172576)
19. P. Skaane, K. Young, and A. Skjennald Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy readingOslo I study Radiology 229 2003 877 884 (Pubitemid 37467596)
20. P. Skaane, and A. Skjennald Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening programthe Oslo II Study Radiology 232 2004 197 204 (Pubitemid 38787838)
21. E.D. Pisano, C. Gatsonis, and E. Hendrick Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening N Engl J Med 353 2005 1 11
22. D.J. Getty Stereoscopic and biplane imaging E. Samei, M.J. Flynn, Advances in digital mammography: categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics 2003 RSNA Oak Brook, IL 199 209
23. D.J. Getty, R.M. Pickett, and C.J. D'Orsi Stereoscopic digital mammography: Improving detection and diagnosis of breast cancer H.U. Lemke, Computer assisted radiology and surgery vol 1230 2001 Elsevier Amsterdam 506 511
24. D. Gur, G.S. Abrams, and D.M. Chough Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study Am J Roentgenol 193 2009 586 591
25. D.O. Cosgrove, R.P. Kedar, and J.C. Bamber Breast diseases: color Doppler US in differential diagnosis Radiology 189 1993 99 104 (Pubitemid 23292930)
26. J. Folkman, and Y. Shing Angiogenesis J Biol Chem 267 1992 10931 10934
27. S.G. Orel, and M.D. Schnall MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer Radiology 220 2001 13 30 (Pubitemid 32577955)
28. W. DeMartini, and C. Lehman A review of current evidence-based clinical applications for breast magnetic resonance imaging Top Magn Reson Imaging 19 2008 143 150
29. D. Saslow, C. Boetes, and W. Burke American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography CA Cancer J Clin 57 2007 75 89 (Pubitemid 46535708)
30. L. Bartella, E.A. Morris, and D.D. Dershaw Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study Radiology 239 2006 686 692 (Pubitemid 43830603)
31. Y. Guo, Y.Q. Cai, and Z.L. Cai Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging J Magn Reson Imaging 16 2002 172 178 (Pubitemid 34810055)
32. W.A. Berg, J.D. Blume, and J.B. Cormack Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer JAMA 299 2008 2151 2163 (Pubitemid 351679706)