Rates of presurgical underestimation of breast cancer after standardized assessment of breast calcifications

RoFo Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Rontgenstrahlen und der Bildgebenden Verfahren

Volumn 187, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 445-449

  Timpe, L ^a   Berkemeyer, S ^a   Puesken, M ^a   Tio, J ^a   Heindel, W ^a   Weigel, S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

biopsy breast; breast; breast cancer; quality assurance; ultrasound; vacuum assisted biopsy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; VACUUM ASSISTED BIOPSY; ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; GERMANY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PREVALENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PREVALENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84929958688     PISSN: 14389029     EISSN: 14389010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1399273     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Brennan M. E., Turner R. M., Ciatto S. et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology: 2011; 260 119 128
2. Jackman R., Burbank F., Parker S. H. et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology: 2001; 218 497 502
3. Del Turco M. R., Mantellini P., Ciatto S. et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol: 2007; 189 860 866
4. Weigel S., Decker T., Korsching E. et al. Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology: 2010; 255 738 745
5. Perry N., Broeders M., de Wolf C. eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: 2006
6. Bundesmantelvertrag Ärzte/Ersatzkassen über besondere Versorgungsaufträge im Rahmen des Programms zur Früherkennung von Brustkrebs durch Mammographie-Screening. Anlage 9.2 Versorgung im Rahmen des Programms zur Früherkennung von Brustkrebs durch Mammographie-Screening. Deutsches Ärzteblatt: 2004; 4 16 44
7. Weigel S., Decker T., Korsching E. et al. Minimal invasive biopsy results of uncertain malignant potential in digital mammography screening: high prevalence but also high predictive value for malignancy. Fortschr Röntgenstr: 2011; 183 743 748
8. Fallenberg E. M., Dimitrijevic L., Diekmann F. et al. Impact of Magnification Views on the Characterization of Microcalcifications in Digital Mammography. Fortschr Röntgenstr: 2014; 186 274 280
9. Hungermann D., Weigel S., Korsching E. et al. Diagnostics of microcalcifications from minimally invasive biopsies in mammography screening: results from the prevalence phase. Pathologe: 2009; 30 31 35
10. Rakha E. A., Lee A. H., Jenkins J. A. et al. Characterization and outcome of breast needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. Int J Cancer: 2011; 129 1417 1424
11. Kohr J. R., Eby P. R., Allison K. H. et al. Risk of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia after stereotactic breast biopsy: effects of number of foci and complete removal of calcifications. Radiology: 2010; 255 723 730
12. Lyman G. H., Temin S., Edge S. B. et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol: 2014; 32 1365 1383
13. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Diagnostik und Therapie primärer und metastasierter Mammakarzinome, Ductales Carcinoma in situ (DCIS), Online Aktualisierung 27.3.2014 Guidelines of the AGO Breast Committee Guidelines Breast Version 2014.1. www.ago-online.de/fuer-mediziner/leitlinienempfehlungen/mamma/
14. Kotani H., Yoshimura A., Adachi Y. et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is not necessary in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast by stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast Cancer: 2014; Epub ahead of print
15. Schulz S., Sinn P., Golatta M. et al. Prediction of underestimated invasiveness in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast on percutaneous biopsy as rationale for recommending concurrent sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast: 2013; 22 537 542
16. Son B. K., Bong J. G., Park S. H. et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ and sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Breast Cancer: 2011; 14 301 307
17. Breast Imaging Working Group of the German Radiological Society Updated Recommendations for MRI of the Breast. Fortschr Röntgenstr: 2014; 186 482 483
18. Bick U., Engelken F., Diederichs G. et al. MRI of the Breast as Part of the Assessment in Population-Based Mammography Screening. Fortschr Röntgenstr: 2013; 185 849 856
19. Wisner D. J., Hwang E. S., Chang C. B. et al. Features of occult invasion in biopsy-proven DCIS at breast MRI. Breast J: 2013; 19 650 658