Literature DB >> 15717995

Incorporating new imaging models in breast cancer management.

Denise H Reddy1, Ellen B Mendelson.   

Abstract

Mammography is the only screening test proven to decrease breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Although mammography is an effective screening tool, it does have limitations, particularly in women with dense breasts. New imaging techniques are emerging to overcome these limitations and enhance cancer detection, improving patient outcome. Digital mammography, computer aided detection, breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are frequently used adjuncts to mammography in today's clinical practice. Recent studies have shown that these techniques can enhance the radiologist's ability to detect cancer and assess disease extent, which is crucial in treatment planning and staging. Positron emission tomography (PET) also plays an important role in staging breast cancer and monitoring treatment response. Other modalities such as tomosynthesis and MR lymphangiography show promise in overcoming the problems related to dense breast tissue and the lack of noninvasive methods to assess lymph node status. Imaging-guided, minimally invasive therapies are also emerging as alternatives to surgical biopsy for breast lesions. As imaging techniques improve, the role of imaging will continue to evolve with the goal remaining a decrease in breast cancer morbidity and mortality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15717995     DOI: 10.1007/s11864-005-0021-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol        ISSN: 1534-6277


  60 in total

Review 1.  Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images.

Authors:  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Hetal Ved; Stephen P Baker; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Preoperative breast cancer staging: MR imaging of the axilla with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide enhancement.

Authors:  Sven C A Michel; Thomas M Keller; Johannes M Fröhlich; Daniel Fink; Rosmarie Caduff; Burkhardt Seifert; Borut Marincek; Rahel A Kubik-Huch
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in Fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Gian M Giuseppetti; Pietro Panizza; Massimo Bazzocchi; Alfonso Fausto; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  Problem solving MR imaging of the breast.

Authors:  Carol H Lee
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.303

6.  Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation.

Authors:  W A Berg; P L Gilbreath
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Breast carcinoma diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis before and after the introduction of mass mammographic screening.

Authors:  Miranda F Ernst; Adri C Voogd; Jan Willem W Coebergh; Jan A Roukema
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Technology as a force for improved diagnosis and treatment of breast disease.

Authors:  Claire M B Holloway; Alexandra Easson; Jaime Escallon; Wey Liang Leong; May Lynn Quan; Michael Reedjik; Frances C Wright; David R McCready
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Lynda C Ikejimba; Predrag R Bakic; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration facilitating diagnosis of sarcoidosis in a breast cancer patient with multiple lymphadenopathy: a case report.

Authors:  Yuka Oride; Yumiko Koi; Tatsunari Sasada; Keiko Kajitani; Masahiro Ohara; Tomohiro Kondo; Yutaka Daimaru; Shingo Kawamura
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2022-05-19

4.  Establishing a program for individuals at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Fernando Cadiz; Henry M Kuerer; Julio Puga; Jamile Camacho; Eduardo Cunill; Banu Arun
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 4.207

5.  False Positive 18F-FDG Uptake in Mediastinal Lymph Nodes Detected with Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer: A Case Report.

Authors:  Gamze Uğurluer; Mustafa Kibar; Sinan Yavuz; Akin Kuzucu; Meltem Serin
Journal:  Case Rep Med       Date:  2013-03-04

6.  The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography.

Authors:  Eun-Ha Moon; Seok Tae Lim; Yeon-Hee Han; Young Jin Jeong; Yun-Hee Kang; Hwan-Jeong Jeong; Myung-Hee Sohn
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 2.991

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.