Screening for breast cancer with sonography

Seminars in Roentgenology

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 285-291

  Carkaci, Selin ^a   Santiago, Lumarie ^a   Adrada, Beatriz E ^a   Whitman, Gary J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MASS SCREENING; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 82455175565     PISSN: 0037198X     EISSN: 15584658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2011.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Parkin D.M., Pisani P., Ferlay J. Estimates of the worldwide incidence of 25 major cancers in 1990. Int J Cancer 1999, 80:827-841.
2. Berg W.A. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004, 42:845-851.
3. Humphrey L.L., Helfand M., Chan B.K., et al. Breast cancer screening: A summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002, 137:347-360.
4. Tabár L., Vitak B., Chen H.H., et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000, 38:625-651.
5. Kolb T.M., Lichy J., Newhouse J.H. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002, 225:165-175.
6. Boyd N.F., Guo H., Martin L.J., et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:227-236.
7. McCormack V.A., dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006, 15:1159-1169.
8. Kerlikowske K. The mammogram that cried Wolfe. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:297-300.
9. Byrne C., Schairer C., Wolfe J., et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: Effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995, 87:1622-1629.
10. Boyd N.F., Dite G.S., Stone J., et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:886-894.
11. Boyd N., Martin L., Chavez S., et al. Breast-tissue composition and other risk factors for breast cancer in young women: A cross-sectional study. Lancet Oncol 2009, 10:569-580.
12. Kerlikowske K., Grady D., Barclay J., et al. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996, 276:33-38.
13. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1773-1783.
14. Morris E.A. Breast cancer imaging with MRI. Radiol Clin North Am 2002, 40:443-466.
15. Fischer U., Kopka L., Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: Effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999, 213:881-888.
16. Van Goethem M., Schelfout K., Dijckmans L., et al. MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: Comparison with mammography and ultrasound. Eur Radiol 2004, 14:809-816.
17. Lehman C.D., Gatsonis C., Kuhl C.K., et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:1295-1303.
18. Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Bieling H.B., et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: A prospective observational study. Lancet 2007, 370:485-492.
19. Boetes C., Mann R.M. Ductal carcinoma in situ and breast MRI. Lancet 2007, 370:459-460.
20. Bigenwald R.Z., Warner E., Gunasekara A., et al. Is mammography adequate for screening women with inherited BRCA mutations and low breast density?. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008, 17:706-711.
21. Berg W.A. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: What now and what next?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192:390-399.
22. Hagen A.I., Kvistad K.A., Maehle L., et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast 2007, 16:367-374.
23. Hartman A.R., Daniel B.L., Kurian A.W., et al. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004, 100:479-489.
24. Kriege M., Brekelmans C.T., Boetes C., et al. Differences between first and subsequent rounds of the MRISC breast cancer screening program for women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Cancer 2006, 106:2318-2326.
25. Leach M.O., Boggis C.R., Dixon A.K., et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005, 365:1769-1778.
26. Lehman C.D., Blume J.D., Weatherall P., et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005, 103:1898-1905.
27. Lehman C.D., Isaacs C., Schnall M.D., 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.
28. Sardanelli F., Podo F., D'Agnolo G., et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): Interim results. Radiology 2007, 242:698-715.
29. Warner E., Plewes D.B., Hill K.A., et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004, 292:1317-1325.
30. Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Leutner C.C., et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:8469-8476.
31. Saslow D., Boetes C., Burke W., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007, 57:75-89.
32. Hrung J.M., Sonnad S.S., Schwartz J.S., et al. Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: A diagnostic meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 1999, 6:387-397.
33. Grobner T. Gadolinium-A specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis?. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006, 21:1104-1108.
34. Marckmann P., Skov L., Rossen K., et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: Suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006, 17:2359-2362.
35. Perlet C., Schneider P., Amaya B., et al. MR-Guided vacuum biopsy of 206 contrast-enhancing breast lesions. Rofo 2002, 174:88-95.
36. Liberman L., Morris E.A., Dershaw D.D., et al. Fast MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: Initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 181:1283-1293.
37. Buchberger W., Niehoff A., Obrist P., et al. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: Detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000, 21:325-336.
38. Leconte I., Feger C., Galant C., et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: The importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 180:1675-1679.
39. Houssami N., Ciatto S., Irwig L., et al. The comparative sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms: An age-specific analysis. Breast 2002, 11:125-130.
40. Irwig L., Houssami N., van Vliet C. New technologies in screening for breast cancer: A systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer 2004, 90:2118-2122.
41. Corsetti V., Houssami N., Ferrari A., et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44:539-544.
42. Moy L., Slanetz P.J., Moore R., et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: Retrospective review. Radiology 2002, 225:176-181.
43. Crystal P., Strano S.D., Shcharynski S., et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 181:177-182.
44. Gordon P.B., Goldenberg S.L. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer 1995, 76:626-630.
45. Kaplan S.S. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001, 221:641-649.
46. Duffy S.W., Tabar L., Vitak B., et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 2003, 39:1755-1760.
47. Berg W.A., Blume J.D., Cormack J.B., et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008, 299:2151-2163.
48. Berg W. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 180:1225-1228.
49. Tyndel S., Austoker J., Henderson B.J., et al. What is the psychological impact of mammographic screening on younger women with a family history of breast cancer?. Findings from a prospective cohort study by the PIMMS Management Group. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:3823-3830.
50. Kuhl C.K. The "coming of age" of nonmammographic screening for breast cancer. JAMA 2008, 299:2203-2205.
51. Gilliland F.D., Joste N., Stauber P.M., et al. Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92:743-749.
52. Teh W., Wilson A.R. The role of ultrasound in breast cancer screening. A consensus statement by the European Group for Breast Cancer Screening. Eur J Cancer 1998, 34:449-450.
53. Kotsianos-Hermle D., Hiltawsky K.M., Wirth S., et al. Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2009, 71:109-115.