Mode of detection and secular time for ductal carcinoma in situ

Journal of the National Cancer Institute - Monographs

Volumn , Issue 41, 2010, Pages 142-144

  Pisano, Etta D ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; PROTEIN P53; TUMOR MARKER;

AFRICAN AMERICAN; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DEMOGRAPHY; ETHNIC AND RACIAL GROUPS; FEMALE; HISPANIC; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ADULT; AGED; BREAST TUMOR; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE COURSE; FORECASTING; INCIDENCE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; RACE; RADIOGRAPHY; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICS; TIME; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FORECASTING; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79952200336     PISSN: 10526773     EISSN: 17456614     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq028     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Anderson WF, Chu KC, Devesa SS. Distinct incidence patterns among in situ and invasive breast carcinomas, with possible etiologic implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;88(2):149-159.
2. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(20):1546-1554.
3. Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW. Ductal carcinoma in Situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology. 1989;170(2):411-415.
4. Seidman H, Gelb SK, Silverberg E, et al. Survival experience in the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. CA Cancer J Clin. 1987;37(5):258-290.
5. UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group. 16-year mortality from breast cancer in the UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Lancet. 1999;353(9168):1909-1914.
6. Rosenberg RD, Lando JF, Hunt WC, et al. The New Mexico Mammography Project: screening mammography performance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1991 to 1993. Cancer. 1996;76(8):1731-1739.
7. Health Canada. Organized Breast Cancer Screening Programs in Canada: 1996 Report. Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Health Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 1999.
8. May DS, Lee NC, Richardson LC, et al. Mammography and breast cancer detection by race and Hispanic Ethnicity: results from a national program (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2000;11(8):697-705.
9. Olivotto IA, Kan L, d'Yachkova Y, et al. Ten years of breast screening in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. J Med Screen. 2000;7(3):152-159.
10. May DC, Lee NC, Nadel MR, et al. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: Report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:97-104.
11. Shapiro S. Evidence on screening for breast cancer from a randomized trial. Cancer. 1977;39(suppl 6):2772-2782.
12. Feig SA. Ductal carcinoma in situ implications for screening mammography. Rad Clins NA. 2000;38(4):1-17.
13. Curpen BN, Sickles EA, Sollito RA, et al. The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years of age versus women 50-64 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164(5):1099-1103.
14. Tabar L, Duffy S, Vitak B, et al. The natural history of breast cancer: what have we learned from screening? Cancer. 1999;86(3):449-462.
15. Carlson KL, Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, et al. Relationship between mammographic screening intervals and size and histology of ductal carcinoma in situ. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(2):313-317.
16. Royal College of Radiologists. Quality Assurance Guidelines for Radiologists. 1997. Sheffield, England: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, NHSBSP Publications No. 151997.
17. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, et al. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(3):1384-1393.
18. Evans AJ, Blanks RG. Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ? Clin Radiol. 2002;57(12):1086-1089.
19. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, et al. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA. 1996;275(12):913-918.
20. Adams-Cameron M, Gilliland FD, Hunt WC, et al. Trends in incidence and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ in Hispanic, American Indian, and non-Hispanic White Women in New Mexico, 1973-1994. Cancer. 1999;85(5):1084-1090.
21. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1973-1994. National Cancer Institute. Pages 123-143.
22. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1973-1998. National Cancer Institute. Tables IV-1-IV-11.
23. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. for ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined Screening with ultrasound and mammography vs. mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-2163.
24. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Trial 6667 Investigators Group. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(13):1295-1303.
25. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. on behalf of the DMIST Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital vs. film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
26. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(3):616-623.
27. Boone JM, Kwan AL, Yang K, et al. Computed tomography for imaging the breast. J Mamm Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2006;11(2):103-111.
28. Shaw C, Chen L, Altunbas M, et al. Cone beam breast CT with a flat panel detector-simulation, implementation and demonstration. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;4:4461-4464.
29. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Naryanan D, et al. High resolution FDG positron emission tomography with compression (" positron emission mammography" ) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12(4):309-323.
30. Brem RF, Fishman M, Rapelyea JA. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol. 2007;14(8):945-950.
31. Berman CG. Recent advances in breast-specific imaging. Cancer Control. 2007;14(4):338-349.
32. Boppart SA, Bouma BE, Pitris C, et al. Intraoperative assessment of microsurgery with three-dimensional optical coherence tomography. Radiology. 1998;208(1):81-86.
33. Meaney PM, Fanning MW, Raynolds T, et al. Initial clinical experience with microwave breast imaging in women with normal mammography. Acad Radiol. 2007;14(2):207-218.
34. Li D, Meaney PM, Tosteson TD, et al. Comparisons of three alternative breast modalities in a common phantom imaging experiment. Med Phys. 2003;30(8):2194-2205.
35. Pisano ED, Johnston RE, Chapman D, et al. Human breast cancer specimens: diffraction-enhanced imaging with histologic correlation-improved conspicuity of lesion detail compared with digital radiography. Radiology. 2000;214(3):895-901.
36. Parham C, Zhong Z, Connor DM, et al. Design and implementation of a compact low-dose diffraction enhanced medical imaging system. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(8):911-917.