Literature DB >> 19593396

Imaging studies for the early detection of breast cancer.

Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner1, Ingrid Schreer, Walter Heindel, Alexander Katalinic.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of mammographic screening has been proven at evidence level 1A. Mammography offers the best ratio of benefits to side effects of any screening method tested to date. In this literature review, we ask whether early detection might be improved still further by combining mammography with other imaging modalities.
METHODS: The authors performed a selective literature search for combined key words in the Medline and Cochrane Library databases from 1/2000 to 11/2007, screened all titles, and evaluated the full text of all original articles. We selected articles for further analysis according to systematic criteria (minimum numbers, avoidance of overlap) and also considered published guidelines.
RESULTS: No screening studies of comparable size to those for mammography are available for ultrasound or MRI. Smaller studies have indicated that the use of these two modalities might lead to the detection of additional cancers in selected subgroups. For mass screening an increase in the detection rate of 10% to 15% might become possible. This increase would probably be associated with a tripling of the breast biopsy rate, compared to mammography alone. The number of indeterminate cases in which short-term follow-up (i.e., at 6 months) would be recommended would increase roughly tenfold with MRI, and to an unknown extent with ultrasound. The related quality-assurance issues remain to be addressed. DISCUSSION: Randomized controlled studies are needed for a realistic assessment of the achievable benefits and unavoidable side effects of combined screening. For women whose risk of breast cancer is not elevated, mammography remains the standard screening method.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; early detection; magnetic resonance imaging; mammography screening; ultrasonography

Year:  2008        PMID: 19593396      PMCID: PMC2696953          DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2008.0541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int        ISSN: 1866-0452            Impact factor:   5.594


  91 in total

1.  Measuring the performance of screening mammography in community practice with Medicare claims data.

Authors:  Jean L Freeman; James S Goodwin; Dong Zhang; Ann B Nattinger; Daniel H Freeman
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  2003

2.  MR-guided intervention in women at high hereditary risk of breast cancer due to both family and personal history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Petra Viehweg; Thorsten Bernerth; Anke Heinig; Marion Kiechle; Jörg Buchmann; Heinz Koelbl; Michael Laniado; Sylvia Helen Heywang-Köbrunner
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Comparison of MRI features of different grades of DCIS and invasive carcinoma of the breast.

Authors:  M Van Goethem; K Schelfout; E Kersschot; C Colpaert; J Weyler; I Verslegers; I Biltjes; A De Schepper; P M Parizel
Journal:  JBR-BTR       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct

4.  Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Claudia C Leutner; Nuschin Morakkabati-Spitz; Eva Wardelmann; Rolf Fimmers; Walther Kuhn; Hans H Schild
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-11-20       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Screening with breast ultrasound in a population at moderate risk due to family history.

Authors:  D O'Driscoll; R Warren; J MacKay; P Britton; N E Day
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast.

Authors:  F Baum; U Fischer; R Vosshenrich; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-02-02       Impact factor: 5.315

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.  MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; Cathleen M Kim; Jennifer B Kaplan; Andrea F Abramson; Jennifer H Menell; Kimberly J Van Zee; D David Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  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

10.  Prospective screening study of 0.5 Tesla dedicated magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in young, high-risk women.

Authors:  Wendy S Rubinstein; Jean J Latimer; Jules H Sumkin; Michelle Huerbin; Stephen G Grant; Victor G Vogel
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2006-06-26       Impact factor: 2.809

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: new genes, new treatments, new concepts.

Authors:  Alfons Meindl; Nina Ditsch; Karin Kast; Kerstin Rhiem; Rita K Schmutzler
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Harmonic Motion Imaging (HMI) for Tumor Imaging and Treatment Monitoring.

Authors:  Elisa E Konofagou; Caroline Maleke; Jonathan Vappou
Journal:  Curr Med Imaging Rev       Date:  2012

3.  Our readers' voice. Letters to the editor are an important component of the discussion of scientific articles, in Deutsches Arzteblatt as in other journals. our correspondence pages reflect a diversity of opinion thanks to the love of debate among our readers--and thanks to a few rules.

Authors:  Christopher Baethge; Gabriele Seger
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2009-03-20       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): MRI not considered.

Authors:  Werner A Kaiser
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): imaging is not sufficient.

Authors:  Manfred Kaufmann
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): Bonn study was interpreted incorrectly.

Authors:  Hans H Schild
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Mammography Screening.

Authors:  Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Astrid Hacker; Stefan Sedlacek
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Mammography Screening - as of 2013.

Authors:  S Heywang-Koebrunner; K Bock; W Heindel; G Hecht; L Regitz-Jedermann; A Hacker; V Kaeaeb-Sanyal
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.915

9.  [Limits of mammography screening: current controversies and perspectives].

Authors:  K Hellerhoff
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 10.  Errors and mistakes in breast ultrasound diagnostics.

Authors:  Wiesław Jakubowski; Katarzyna Dobruch-Sobczak; Bartosz Migda
Journal:  J Ultrason       Date:  2012-09-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.