Clustered microcalcifications of intermediate concern detected on digital mammography: Ultrasound assessment

Breast

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 495-500

  Yu, Pao Chu ^a   Lee, Yi Wei ^a   Chou, Fong Fu ^a   Wu, Shih Chung ^a   Huang, Chung Cheng ^a   Ng, Shu Hang ^a   Sheen Chen, Shyr Ming ^a   Ko, Sheung Fat ^a  

^a CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Amorphous; Cluster; Coarse heterogeneous; Digital mammography; Microcalcifications; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CYST; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; TUMOR LOCALIZATION;

EID: 82955212882     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: 15323080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., Yaffe M., Baum J.K., Acharyya S., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1773-1783. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group.
2. Humphrey L.L., Helfand M., Chan B.K., Woolf S.H. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002, 137:347-360.
3. Fletcher S.W., Elmore J.G. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:1672-1680.
4. Buist D.S.M., Porter P.L., Lehman C., Taplin S.H., White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96:1432-1440.
5. Kerlikowske K., Grady D., Barclay J., Sickles E.A., Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996, 276:33-38.
6. Pisano E.D., Yaffe M.J. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005, 234:353-361.
7. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 2003, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA. 4th ed.
8. Lazarus E., Mainiero M.B., Schepps B., Koelliker S.L., Livingston L.S. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006, 239:385-391.
9. Burnside E.S., Ochsner J.E., Fowler K.J., Fine J.P., Salkowski L.R., Rubin D.L., et al. Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology 2007, 242:388-395.
10. Moon W.K., Im J.G., Koh Y.H., Noh D.Y., Park I.A. US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications. Radiology 2000, 217:849-854.
11. Gufler H., Buitrago-Téllez C.H., Madjar H., Allmann K.H., Uhl M., Rohr-Reyes A. Ultrasound demonstration of mammographically detected microcalcifications. Acta Radiol 2000, 41:217-221.
12. Hashimoto B.E., Kramer D.J., Picozzi V.J. High detection rate of breast ductal carcinoma in situ calcifications on mammographically directed high-resolution sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2001, 20:501-588.
13. Cheung Y.C., Wan Y.L., Chen S.C., Lui K.W., Ng S.H., Yeow K.M., et al. Sonographic evaluation of mammographically detected microcalcifications without a mass prior to stereotactic core needle biopsy. J Clin Ultrasound 2002, 30:323-331.
14. Soo M.S., Baker J.A., Rosen E.L., Vo T.T. Sonographically guided biopsy of suspicious microcalcifications of the breast: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 178:1007-1015.
15. Soo M.S., Baker J.A., Rosen E.L. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 180:941-948.
16. Nagashima T., Hashimoto H., Oshida K., Nakano S., Tanabe N., Nikaido T., et al. Ultrasound demonstration of mammographically detected microcalcifications in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer 2005, 3:216-220.
17. Del Turco M.R., Mantellini P., Ciatto S., Bonardi R., Martinelli F., Lazzari B., et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 189:860-866.
18. Vigeland E., Klaasen H., Klingen T.A., Hofvind S., Skaane P. Full-field digital mammography compared with screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening program: the Vestfold County study. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:183-191.
19. Hagen-Ansert S.L., Salsgiver T.L., Glen M.E. The breast. Textbook of diagnostic ultrasonography 2006, 471-513. Mosby, St Louis. S.L. Hagen-Ansert (Ed.).
20. Berg W.A. Coarse heterogeneous calcifications and amorphous calcifications. In Diagnostic imaging: breast 2006, IV-1:80-89. Amirsys, Salt Lake City. W.A. Berg (Ed.).
21. Chan E.C. Promoting an ethical approach to unproven imaging tests. J Am Coll Radiol 2005, 2:311-320.
22. Hillman B.J. Informed and shared decision making: an alternative to the debate over unproven screening tests. J Am Coll Radiol 2005, 2:297-298.
23. Gruber R., Walter E., Helbich T.H. Cost comparison between ultrasound-guided 14-g large core breast biopsy and open surgical biopsy: an analysis for Austria. Eur J Radiol 2010, 74:519-524.
24. Nurko J., Mancino A.T., Whitacre E., Edwards M.J. Surgical benefits conveyed by biopsy site marking system using ultrasound localization. Am J Surg 2005, 190:618-622.