• 1

    American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2007-2008. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/BCFF-Final.pdf. Accessed October 29. 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    JemalASiegelRWardE. Cancer Statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin2009;59:225-249.

  • 3

    HumphreyLLHelfandMChanBKWoolfSH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med2002;137:347-360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    BeversTB. Ultrasound for the screening of breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep2008;10:527-528.

  • 5

    BartonMBHarrisRFletcherSW. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How?JAMA1999;282:1270-1280.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    BeversTB. Breast self-examination: an optional screening modality in National Comprehensive Cancer Network Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines. Breast Dis1998;9:230-231.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    ThomasDBGaoDLRayRM. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst2002;94:1445-1457.

  • 8

    MossSMCuckleHEvansA. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2006;368:2053-2060.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    ArmstrongKMoyeEWilliamsS. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med2007;146:516-526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    van SchoorGBroedersMJPaapE. A rationale for starting breast cancer screening under age 50. Ann Oncol2008;19:1208-1209.

  • 11

    SmithRACokkinidesVEyreHJ. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin2003;53:27-43.

  • 12

    FletcherSWElmoreJG. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med2003;348:1672-1680.

  • 13

    BuistDSPorterPLLehmanC. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst2004;96:1432-1440.

  • 14

    GotzschePCNielsenM. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2006;CD001877.

  • 15

    BerryDA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst1998;90:1431-1439.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    van DijckJVerbeekAHendriksJ. Mammographic screening after the age of 65 years: early outcomes in the Nijmegen programme. Br J Cancer1996;74:1838-1842.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    BadgwellBDGiordanoSHDuanZZ. Mammography before diagnosis among women age 80 years and older with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2008;26:2482-2488.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    MandelblattJSSillimanR. Hanging in the balance: making decisions about the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening among the oldest old without a safety net of scientific evidence. J Clin Oncol2009;27:487-490.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    YahalomJPetrekJABiddingerPW. Breast cancer in patients irradiated for Hodgkin's disease: a clinical and pathologic analysis of 45 events in 37 patients. J Clin Oncol1992;10:1674-1681.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    BhatiaSRobisonLLOberlinO. Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med1996;334:745-751.

  • 21

    BhatiaSYasuiYRobisonLL. High risk of subsequent neoplasms continues with extended follow-up of childhood Hodgkin's disease: report from the Late Effects Study Group. J Clin Oncol2003;21:4386-4394.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    van LeeuwenFEKlokmanWJStovallM. Roles of radiation dose, chemotherapy, and hormonal factors in breast cancer following Hodgkin's disease. J Natl Cancer Inst2003;95:971-980.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    HancockSLTuckerMAHoppeRT. Breast cancer after treatment of Hodgkin's disease. J Natl Cancer Inst1993;85:25-31.

  • 24

    MetayerCLynchCFClarkeEA. Second cancers among long-term survivors of Hodgkin's disease diagnosed in childhood and adolescence. J Clin Oncol2000;18:2435-2443.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    TravisLBHillDDoresGM. Cumulative absolute breast cancer risk for young women treated for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst2005;97:1428-1437.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    OeffingerKCFordJSMoskowitzCS. Breast cancer surveillance practices among women previously treated with chest radiation for a childhood cancer. JAMA2009;301:404-414.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Children's Oncology Group Long-term Follow-up Guidelines. Version 3October2008. Available at: www.survivorshipguidelines.org. Accessed September 3 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    GailMHBrintonLAByarDP. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst1989;81:1879-1886.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    GailMHCostantinoJP. Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2001;93:334-335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    RockhillBSpiegelmanDByrneC. Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst2001;93:358-366.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    SpiegelmanDColditzGAHunterDHertzmarkE. Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst1994;86:600-607.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    CostantinoJPGailMHPeeD. Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst1999;91:1541-1548.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    GailMHCostantinoJPPeeD. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst2007;99:1782-1792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    SaslowDBoetesCBurkeW. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin2007;57:75-89.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    ParmigianiGBerryDAguilarO. Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet1998;62:145-158.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    AntoniouACCunninghamAPPetoJ. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer2008;98:1457-1466.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol2003;21:2397-2406.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    GoldfrankDChuaiSBernsteinJL. Effect of mammography on breast cancer risk in women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2006;15:2311-2313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    RebbeckTRDomchekSM. Variation in breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res2008;10:108.

  • 40

    DupontWDPageDL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med1985;312:146-151.

  • 41

    DupontWDParlFFHartmannWH. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer1993;71:1258-1265.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    ArpinoGLauciricaRElledgeRM. Premalignant and in situ breast disease: biology and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med2005;143:446-457.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    LakhaniSR. In-situ lobular neoplasia: time for an awakening. Lancet2003;361:96.

  • 44

    NemecCFListinskyJRimA. How should we screen for breast cancer? Mammography, ultrasonography, MRI. Cleve Clin J Med2007;74:897-904.

  • 45

    CarneyPAMigliorettiDLYankaskasBC. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med2003;138:168-175.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    BergWABlumeJDCormackJB. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA2008;299:2151-2163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    KuhlCKSchradingSLeutnerCC. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2005;23:8469-8476.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48

    Tilanus-LinthorstMVerhoogLObdeijnIM. A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography. Int J Cancer2002;102:91-95.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49

    SkaanePYoungKSkjennaldA. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology2003;229:877-884.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50

    SkaanePSkjennaldA. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II Study. Radiology2004;232:197-204.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51

    SkaanePHofvindSSkjennaldA. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology2007;244:708-717.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    LewinJMHendrickRED'OrsiCJ. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology2001;218:873-880.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    PisanoEDGatsonisCHendrickE. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med2005;353:1773-1783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54

    PisanoEDHendrickREYaffeMJ. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology2008;246:376-383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55

    Quality Mammography Standards: Final Rule. Federal Register1997;62:55988.

  • 56

    D'OrsiCJBassettLWBergWA. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-Mammographyed. 4. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57

    LordSJLeiWCraftP. A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer2007;43:1905-1917.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58

    MannRMKuhlCKKinkelKBoetesC. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol2008;18:1307-1318.

  • 59

    SchnallMOrelS. Breast MR imaging in the diagnostic setting. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am2006;14:329-337vi.

  • 60

    RobsonMEOffitK. Breast MRI for women with hereditary cancer risk. JAMA2004;292:1368-1370.

  • 61

    WarnerEPlewesDBHillKA. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA2004;292:1317-1325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62

    WarnerE. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in screening women at high risk of breast cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging2008;19:163-169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63

    WarnerEMessersmithHCauserP. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med2008;148:671-679.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64

    KriegeMBrekelmansCTBoetesC. Differences between first and subsequent rounds of the MRISC breast cancer screening program for women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Cancer2006;106:2318-2326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65

    KriegeMBrekelmansCTObdeijnIM. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography and MRI in women with an inherited risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat2006;100:109-119.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 66

    LehmanCDSmithRA. The role of MRI in breast cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2009;7:1109-1115.

  • 67

    LeachMOBoggisCRDixonAK. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet2005;365:1769-1778.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68

    PortERParkABorgenPI. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol2007;14:1051-1057.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69

    KuhlCK. The “coming of age” of nonmammographic screening for breast cancer. JAMA2008;299:2203-2205.

  • 70

    KaplanSS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology2001;221:641-649.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71

    BuchbergerWDeKoekkoek-DollPSpringerP. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol1999;173:921-927.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 72

    CorsettiVHoussamiNFerrariA. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer2008;44:539-544.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 73

    American College of Radiology Ultrasound BI-RADS Final Assessment Categories. Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/BIRADSAtlas/BIRADSAtlasexcerptedtext/BIRADSUltrasoundFirstEdition/AssessmentCategoriesDoc2.aspx. Accessed October 29 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 74

    BergWACampassiCIIoffeOB. Cystic lesions of the breast: sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology2003;227:183-191.

  • 75

    BooiRCCarsonPLO'DonnellM. Characterization of cysts using differential correlation coefficient values from two dimensional breast elastography: preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol2008;34:12-21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 76

    HuffJM. The differing clinical implications of simple, complicated and complex breast cysts. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2009;7:1101-1105.

  • 77

    VentaLAKimJPPelloskiCEMorrowM. Management of complex breast cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol1999;173:1331-1336.

  • 78

    DalyCPBaileyJEKleinKAHelvieMA. Complicated breast cysts on sonography: is aspiration necessary to exclude malignancy?Acad Radiol2008;15:610-617.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 79

    TeaMKGrimmCFink-RetterA. The validity of complex breast cysts after surgery. Am J Surg2009;197:199-202.

  • 80

    DoshiDJMarchDECrisiGMCoughlinBF. Complex cystic breast masses: diagnostic approach and imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics2007;27(Suppl 1):S53-64.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 81

    RenzDMBaltzerPABottcherJ. Inflammatory breast carcinoma in magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison with locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol2008;15:209-221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 82

    AbatiASimsirA. Breast fine needle aspiration biopsy: prevailing recommendations and contemporary practices. Clin Lab Med2005;25:631-654v.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 83

    LevinePSimsirACangiarellaJ. Management issues in breast lesions diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration and percutaneous core breast biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol2006;125(Suppl):S124-134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 84

    PisanoEDFajardoLLCaudryDJ. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V. Radiology2001;219:785-792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 85

    PijnappelRMvan den DonkMHollandR. Diagnostic accuracy for different strategies of image-guided breast intervention in cases of nonpalpable breast lesions. Br J Cancer2004;90:595-600.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 86

    VerkooijenHM. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: results of a multicenter prospective study with 95% surgical confirmation. Int J Cancer2002;99:853-859.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 87

    PandelidisSHeilandDJonesD. Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol2003;10:43-47.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 88

    Sigal-ZafraniBMullerKEl KhouryC. Vacuum-assisted large-core needle biopsy (VLNB) improves the management of patients with breast microcalcifications—analysis of 1009 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol2008;34:377-381.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 89

    BurbankFForcierN. Tissue marking clip for stereotactic breast biopsy: initial placement accuracy, long-term stability, and usefulness as a guide for wire localization. Radiology1997;205:407-415.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 90

    EgyedZPentekZJarayB. Radial scar-significant diagnostic challenge. Pathol Oncol Res2008;14:123-129.

  • 91

    CangiarellaJGuthAAxelrodD. Is surgical excision necessary for the management of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core needle biopsy?: a report of 38 cases and review of the literature. Arch Pathol Lab Med2008;132:979-983.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 92

    ElsheikhTMSilvermanJF. Follow-up surgical excision is indicated when breast core needle biopsies show atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ: a correlative study of 33 patients with review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol2005;29:534-543.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 93

    MargenthalerJADukeDMonseesBS. Correlation between core biopsy and excisional biopsy in breast high-risk lesions. Am J Surg2006;192:534-537.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 94

    LinellF. Precursor lesions of breast carcinoma. Breast1993;2:202-223.

  • 95

    ParkerSHBurbankFJackmanRJ. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology. 1994;193:359-364.

  • 96

    FrougeCTristantHGuinebretiereJM. Mammographic lesions suggestive of radial scars: microscopic findings in 40 cases. Radiology1995;195:623-625.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 97

    NagiCSO'DonnellJETismenetskyM. Lobular neoplasia on core needle biopsy does not require excision. Cancer2008;112:2152-2158.

  • 98

    MiddletonLPGrantSStephensT. Lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy: when should it be excised?Mod Pathol2003;16:120-129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 99

    SohnVYArthursZMKimFSBrownTA. Lobular neoplasia: is surgical excision warranted?Am Surg2008;74:172-177.

  • 100

    HussainANPolicarpioCVincentMT. Evaluating nipple discharge. Obstet Gynecol Surv2006;61:278-283.

  • 101

    LeisHPJr. Management of nipple discharge. World J Surg1989;13:736-742.

  • 102

    SlawsonSHJohnsonBA. Ductography: how to and what if?Radiographics2001;21:133-150.

  • 103

    HiroseMNobusawaHGokanT. MR ductography: comparison with conventional ductography as a diagnostic method in patients with nipple discharge. Radiographics2007;27(Suppl 1):S183-196.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 104

    OrelSGDoughertyCSReynoldsC. MR imaging in patients with nipple discharge: initial experience. Radiology2000;216:248-254.

  • 105

    BassettLWinchesterDPCaplanRB. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists. CA Cancer J Clin1997;47:171-190.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 106

    DawoodSCristofanilliM. What progress have we made in managing inflammatory breast cancer?Oncology2007;21:673-687.

  • 107

    HaagensenCD. Diseases of the Breast. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1956.

  • 108

    SakorafasGHBlanchardKSarrMGFarleyDR. Paget's disease of the breast. Cancer Treat Rev2001;27:9-18.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1268 1267 118
PDF Downloads 148 148 14
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0