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.
HumphreyLLHelfandMChanBKWoolfSH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med2002;137:347-360.
BartonMBHarrisRFletcherSW. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How?JAMA1999;282:1270-1280.
BeversTB. Breast self-examination: an optional screening modality in National Comprehensive Cancer Network Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines. Breast Dis1998;9:230-231.
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.
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.
BerryDA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst1998;90:1431-1439.
van DijckJVerbeekAHendriksJ. Mammographic screening after the age of 65 years: early outcomes in the Nijmegen programme. Br J Cancer1996;74:1838-1842.
BadgwellBDGiordanoSHDuanZZ. Mammography before diagnosis among women age 80 years and older with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2008;26:2482-2488.
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.
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.
BhatiaSRobisonLLOberlinO. Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med1996;334:745-751.
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.
van LeeuwenFEKlokmanWJStovallM. Roles of radiation dose, chemotherapy, and hormonal factors in breast cancer following Hodgkin's disease. J Natl Cancer Inst2003;95:971-980.
MetayerCLynchCFClarkeEA. Second cancers among long-term survivors of Hodgkin's disease diagnosed in childhood and adolescence. J Clin Oncol2000;18:2435-2443.
TravisLBHillDDoresGM. Cumulative absolute breast cancer risk for young women treated for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst2005;97:1428-1437.
OeffingerKCFordJSMoskowitzCS. Breast cancer surveillance practices among women previously treated with chest radiation for a childhood cancer. JAMA2009;301:404-414.
GailMHBrintonLAByarDP. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst1989;81:1879-1886.
GailMHCostantinoJP. Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2001;93:334-335.
RockhillBSpiegelmanDByrneC. Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst2001;93:358-366.
SpiegelmanDColditzGAHunterDHertzmarkE. Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst1994;86:600-607.
CostantinoJPGailMHPeeD. Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst1999;91:1541-1548.
GailMHCostantinoJPPeeD. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst2007;99:1782-1792.
SaslowDBoetesCBurkeW. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin2007;57:75-89.
ParmigianiGBerryDAguilarO. Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet1998;62:145-158.
AntoniouACCunninghamAPPetoJ. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer2008;98:1457-1466.
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol2003;21:2397-2406.
GoldfrankDChuaiSBernsteinJL. Effect of mammography on breast cancer risk in women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2006;15:2311-2313.
DupontWDParlFFHartmannWH. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer1993;71:1258-1265.
ArpinoGLauciricaRElledgeRM. Premalignant and in situ breast disease: biology and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med2005;143:446-457.
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.
BergWABlumeJDCormackJB. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA2008;299:2151-2163.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PisanoEDGatsonisCHendrickE. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med2005;353:1773-1783.
PisanoEDHendrickREYaffeMJ. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology2008;246:376-383.
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.
WarnerEPlewesDBHillKA. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA2004;292:1317-1325.
WarnerEMessersmithHCauserP. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med2008;148:671-679.
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.
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.
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.
PortERParkABorgenPI. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol2007;14:1051-1057.
KaplanSS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology2001;221:641-649.
BuchbergerWDeKoekkoek-DollPSpringerP. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol1999;173:921-927.
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.
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
BooiRCCarsonPLO'DonnellM. Characterization of cysts using differential correlation coefficient values from two dimensional breast elastography: preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol2008;34:12-21.
DalyCPBaileyJEKleinKAHelvieMA. Complicated breast cysts on sonography: is aspiration necessary to exclude malignancy?Acad Radiol2008;15:610-617.
DoshiDJMarchDECrisiGMCoughlinBF. Complex cystic breast masses: diagnostic approach and imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics2007;27(Suppl 1):S53-64.
RenzDMBaltzerPABottcherJ. Inflammatory breast carcinoma in magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison with locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol2008;15:209-221.
AbatiASimsirA. Breast fine needle aspiration biopsy: prevailing recommendations and contemporary practices. Clin Lab Med2005;25:631-654v.
LevinePSimsirACangiarellaJ. Management issues in breast lesions diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration and percutaneous core breast biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol2006;125(Suppl):S124-134.
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.
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.
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.
PandelidisSHeilandDJonesD. Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol2003;10:43-47.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MargenthalerJADukeDMonseesBS. Correlation between core biopsy and excisional biopsy in breast high-risk lesions. Am J Surg2006;192:534-537.
FrougeCTristantHGuinebretiereJM. Mammographic lesions suggestive of radial scars: microscopic findings in 40 cases. Radiology1995;195:623-625.
MiddletonLPGrantSStephensT. Lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy: when should it be excised?Mod Pathol2003;16:120-129.
HiroseMNobusawaHGokanT. MR ductography: comparison with conventional ductography as a diagnostic method in patients with nipple discharge. Radiographics2007;27(Suppl 1):S183-196.
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.