Imaging for the diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ

Journal of the National Cancer Institute - Monographs

Volumn , Issue 41, 2010, Pages 214-217

  D'Orsi, Carl J ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCIFICATION; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; MASS SCREENING; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RADIOGRAPHY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 79952198068     PISSN: 10526773     EISSN: 17456614     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq037     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Rosner D, Bedwani RN, Vana J, et al. Non-invasive breast carcinoma: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Ann Surg. 1980;192(2):139-147.
2. Blichert-Toft M, Graversen HP, Andersen J, et al. In sity breast carcinomas: a population-based study on frequency, growth pattern, and clinical aspects. World J Surg. 1988;12:845-851.
3. Ward BA, McKhann CF, Ravikumar TS. Ten-year follow-up of breast carcinoma in situ in Connecticut. Arch Surg. 1992;127(12):1392-1395.
4. Barreau B, deMascarel I, Feuga C, et al. Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlation. Eur J Radiol. 2005;54(1):55-61.
5. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Burhenne LW, et al. New Swedish breast cancer detection results for women aged 40-49. Cancer. 1993;72(4 suppl):1437-1448.
6. Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, et al. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20 year follow up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet. 2003;361(9367):1405-1410.
7. Berg W, Arnoldus CL, Teferra E. Biopsies of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology. 2001;221(2):495-503.
8. 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(1):35-40.
9. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low levels of Ionizing Radiation. Board of Radiation Effects Research, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies. Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
10. Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194.
11. Ernester VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, et al. Incidence and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA. 1996;275(12):913-918.
12. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark W, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353(9169):1993-2000.
13. The Swedish Organised Service Screening Education Group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organised service screening with mammography, 1: further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epdemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:45-51.