Literature DB >> 12853663

Missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearls.

Aneesa S Majid1, Ellen Shaw de Paredes, Richard D Doherty, Neil R Sharma, Xavier Salvador.   

Abstract

Mammography is the standard of reference for the detection of breast carcinoma, yet 10%-30% of breast cancers may be missed at mammography. Possible causes for missed breast cancers include dense parenchyma obscuring a lesion, poor positioning or technique, perception error, incorrect interpretation of a suspect finding, subtle features of malignancy, and slow growth of a lesion. Recent studies have emphasized the use of alternative imaging modalities to detect and diagnose breast carcinoma, including ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance imaging, and nuclear medicine studies. However, the radiologist can take a number of steps that will significantly enhance the accuracy of image interpretation at mammography and decrease the false-negative rate. These steps include performing diagnostic as well as screening mammography, reviewing clinical data and using US to help assess a palpable or mammographically detected mass, strictly adhering to positioning and technical requirements, being alert to subtle features of breast cancers, comparing recent images with earlier mammograms to look for subtle increases in lesion size, looking for additional lesions when one abnormality is seen, and judging a lesion by its most malignant features. Copyright RSNA, 2003

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12853663     DOI: 10.1148/rg.234025083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  45 in total

1.  Measures of angular spread and entropy for the detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms.

Authors:  Shantanu Banik; Rangaraj M Rangayyan; J E Leo Desautels
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Frequency of malignancy seen in probably benign lesions at contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: findings from ACRIN 6667.

Authors:  Susan P Weinstein; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell D Schnall; Mark A Rosen; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.

Authors:  Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Kristina Lång; Albert Gubern-Merida; Mireille Broeders; Gisella Gennaro; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Margarita Chevalier; Tao Tan; Thomas Mertelmeier; Matthew G Wallis; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson; Ritse M Mann; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Breast screen new South wales generally demonstrates good radiologic viewing conditions.

Authors:  BaoLin Pauline Soh; Warwick Lee; Jennifer L Diffey; Mark F McEntee; Peter L Kench; Warren M Reed; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Assessing the effect of a true-positive recall case in screening mammography: does perceptual priming alter radiologists' performance?

Authors:  S J Lewis; C R Mello-Thoms; P C Brennan; W Lee; A Tan; M F McEntee; M Evanoff; M Pietrzyk; W M Reed
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  State of the art of current modalities for the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Cosimo Di Maggio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  A half-second glimpse often lets radiologists identify breast cancer cases even when viewing the mammogram of the opposite breast.

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Tamara Miner Haygood; Julie Cooper; Anne-Marie Culpan; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Breast MRI, digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis: comparison of three methods for early detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Dragana Roganovic; Dragana Djilas; Sasa Vujnovic; Dag Pavic; Dragan Stojanov
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 3.363

10.  Rare breast cancer subtypes: histological, molecular, and clinical peculiarities.

Authors:  Maria Vittoria Dieci; Enrico Orvieto; Massimo Dominici; PierFranco Conte; Valentina Guarneri
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-06-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.