Literature DB >> 15085294

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

Cosimo Di Maggio1.   

Abstract

With the availability of numerous diagnostic techniques comes the possible risk of the unjustified use of such techniques and a lack of rational clinical application. Clearly, errors of this nature would affect the diagnostic accuracy and therefore reduce the possibilities for treatment. It is not uncommon for women and also for general practitioners to be misinformed about which is the most suitable technique or rather, which is the best combination of the various techniques. For this reason, inappropriate tests are often requested or, conversely, there is failure to request tests which would in fact make a useful contribution to safeguarding the patient's health. This work has the following aims: (a) to set out precisely the real diagnostic contribution of each method, both radiological and otherwise, and suggest methods of application and indications consistent with the state of the art, and (b) to suggest the most effective and rational combinations of the various techniques and organisation of diagnostic activities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15085294     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-004-1527-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  84 in total

1.  Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V.

Authors:  E D Pisano; L L Fajardo; D J Caudry; N Sneige; W J Frable; W A Berg; I Tocino; S J Schnitt; J L Connolly; C A Gatsonis; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. EUSOMA Working Party.

Authors:  N M Perry
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  [Cost analysis of a mammographic screening program].

Authors:  F Vanara; A Ponti; A Frigerio; N Segnan
Journal:  Epidemiol Prev       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 1.901

4.  MRI of the breast in patients with metastatic disease of unknown primary.

Authors:  C Schorn; U Fischer; S Luftner-Nagel; J P Westerhof; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization.

Authors:  N Bjurstam; L Björneld; S W Duffy; T C Smith; E Cahlin; O Eriksson; L O Hafström; H Lingaas; J Mattsson; S Persson; C M Rudenstam; J Säve-Söderbergh
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1997-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Contribution of clinical breast examination to mammography screening in the early detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  C Bancej; K Decker; A Chiarelli; M Harrison; D Turner; J Brisson
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Reduction in the number of sentinel lymph node procedures by preoperative ultrasonography of the axilla in breast cancer.

Authors:  E E Deurloo; P J Tanis; K G A Gilhuijs; S H Muller; R Kröger; J L Peterse; E J Th Rutgers; R Valdés Olmos; L J Schultze Kool
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

Authors:  Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Marylee E Brown; Stephen A Feig; Roberta A Jong; Andrew D A Maidment; Melinda J Staiger; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Rita I Freimanis; Nadine Lesko; Eric L Rosen; Ruth Walsh; Margaret Williford; M Patricia Braeuning
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review.

Authors:  Linda Moy; Priscilla J Slanetz; Richard Moore; Sameer Satija; Eren D Yeh; Kathleen A McCarthy; Deborah Hall; Mary Staffa; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Elkan Halpern; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions.

Authors:  H C Burrell; S E Pinder; A R Wilson; A J Evans; L J Yeoman; C W Elston; I O Ellis
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  3 in total

1.  Breast Cancer OncoGuia.

Authors:  Paula Manchon; Josep M Borràs; Tàrsila Ferro; Josep Alfons Espinàs
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  Female breast cancer in Vietnam: a comparison across Asian specific regions.

Authors:  Phuong Dung Yun Trieu; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Cancer Biol Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.248

3.  AAWS-Net: Anatomy-aware weakly-supervised learning network for breast mass segmentation.

Authors:  Yeheng Sun; Yule Ji
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.