Screen-detected breast cancer: Does presence of minimal signs on prior mammograms predict staging or grading of cancer?

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 66, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 605-608

  Bansal, G J ^a   Thomas, K G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF WALES   (United Kingdom)

^b Breast Test Wales ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LYMPH NODE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 79957709719     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: 1365229X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Nab HW, Voogd AC, Crommelin MA, et al. Breast cancer in the south-east Netherlands, 1960-1989: trends in incidence and mortality. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:1557-9.
2. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJG, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985;i:829-32. (Pubitemid 15115114)
3. Moberg K, Grundstrom H, Lundquist H, et al. Radiological review of incidence breast cancers. J Med Screen 2000;7:177-83. (Pubitemid 32099054)
4. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215:554-62. (Pubitemid 30237859)
5. Forrest Report. Breast cancer screening report to the health ministers of England, Wales, Scotland and N Ireland by a working group, chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest. London: Nov 1988. ISBN 011 321071.
6. NHSBSP - Statistical bulletin (England), www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk; 2009; [Accessed 1.12.10].
7. Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM, et al. Biologic characteristics of interval and screen detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;92:743-9.
8. Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, et al. Breast tumour characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:2020-8.
9. McDonald JH. Handbook of biological statistics. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Sparky House Publishing; 2009.
10. Broeders MJM, Onland-Moret NC, Rijken HJTM, et al. Use of previous screening mammograms to identify features indicating cases that would have a possible gain in prognosis following earlier detection. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1770-5. (Pubitemid 36897615)
11. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Meth 2007;39:175-91.
12. Saarenmaa T, Salminen T, Gieger U, et al. The visibility of cancer on previous mammograms in retrospective review. Clin Radiol 2001;56:40-3. (Pubitemid 32685183)
13. Palka I, Keleman G, Ormandi K, et al. Tumour characteristics in screen detected and symptomatic breast cancers. Pathol Oncol Res 2008;14:161-7.
14. Burrell HC, Evans AJ, Wilson RM, et al. False negative breast screening assessment. What lessons can we learn? Clin Radiol 2001;56:385-8.
15. Duncan KA, Needham G, Gilbert FJ, et al. Incident round cancers: what lessons can we learn? Clin Radiol 1998;53:29-32.
16. Daly CA, Apthorp L, Field S. Screen round cancers: how many were visible on first round of the UK National Breast Screening Programme, three years earlier? Clin Radiol 1998;53:25-8. (Pubitemid 28043740)
17. Evans A, Clements K, Maxwell A, et al. Lesion size is a major determinant of mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the Sloane project. Clin Radiol 2010;65:181-4.