Literature DB >> 23561631

Beyond mammography: new frontiers in breast cancer screening.

Jennifer S Drukteinis1, Blaise P Mooney, Chris I Flowers, Robert A Gatenby.   

Abstract

Breast cancer screening remains a subject of intense and, at times, passionate debate. Mammography has long been the mainstay of breast cancer detection and is the only screening test proven to reduce mortality. Although it remains the gold standard of breast cancer screening, there is increasing awareness of subpopulations of women for whom mammography has reduced sensitivity. Mammography also has undergone increased scrutiny for false positives and excessive biopsies, which increase radiation dose, cost, and patient anxiety. In response to these challenges, new technologies for breast cancer screening have been developed, including low-dose mammography, contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, automated whole breast ultrasound, molecular imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging. Here we examine some of the current controversies and promising new technologies that may improve detection of breast cancer both in the general population and in high-risk groups, such as women with dense breasts. We propose that optimal breast cancer screening will ultimately require a personalized approach based on metrics of cancer risk with selective application of specific screening technologies best suited to the individual's age, risk, and breast density.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23561631      PMCID: PMC4010151          DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.11.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  41 in total

1.  Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography.

Authors:  Magnus Aslund; Björn Cederström; Mats Lundqvist; Mats Danielsson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Sylvia K Plevritis; Allison W Kurian; Bronislava M Sigal; Bruce L Daniel; Debra M Ikeda; Frank E Stockdale; Alan M Garber
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-05-24       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: masking bias or causality?

Authors:  C H van Gils; J D Otten; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 8.082

5.  Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme.

Authors:  E Sala; R Warren; J McCann; S Duffy; N Day; R Luben
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 6.  Management of women at high risk for breast cancer: new imaging beyond mammography.

Authors:  C K Kuhl; W Kuhn; H Schild
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2005-09-26       Impact factor: 4.380

7.  Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Valerie A McCormack; Isabel dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography.

Authors:  Clarisse Dromain; Corrine Balleyguier; Serge Muller; Marie-Christine Mathieu; France Rochard; Paule Opolon; Robert Sigal
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Underutilization of measurement of serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients with manifest atherosclerotic disease.

Authors:  G Mendelson; W S Aronow
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 10.  Radiation risk from screening mammography of women aged 40-49 years.

Authors:  S A Feig; R E Hendrick
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997
View more
  42 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic performance of the automated breast volume scanner: a systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.

Authors:  Zheying Meng; Cui Chen; Yitong Zhu; Shuling Zhang; Cong Wei; Bin Hu; Li Yu; Bing Hu; E Shen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Classification of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images.

Authors:  Shaked Perek; Nahum Kiryati; Gali Zimmerman-Moreno; Miri Sklair-Levy; Eli Konen; Arnaldo Mayer
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Automated quality assessment in three-dimensional breast ultrasound images.

Authors:  Julia Schwaab; Yago Diez; Arnau Oliver; Robert Martí; Jan van Zelst; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Ahmed Bensouda Mourri; Johannes Gregori; Matthias Günther
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-04-25

Review 4.  Main controversies in breast cancer.

Authors:  Stephane Zervoudis; George Iatrakis; Eirini Tomara; Anastasia Bothou; George Papadopoulos; George Tsakiris
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-10

Review 5.  Preventing breast cancer in LMICs via screening and/or early detection: The real and the surreal.

Authors:  Subhojit Dey
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-10

Review 6.  Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in cancer: Technique, analysis, and applications.

Authors:  Kay M Pepin; Richard L Ehman; Kiaran P McGee
Journal:  Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 9.795

7.  TREATMENT OF BREAST CANCER: IMO STATE NIGERIA VERSUS INDIANA, USA WOMEN - COMPARATIVE ANALYTIC STUDY.

Authors:  A A Anele; M Bowling; G J Eckert; Elf Gonzalez; H Kipfer; C Sauder
Journal:  J West Afr Coll Surg       Date:  2014 Oct-Dec

Review 8.  Epigenetic regulation of glycosylation and the impact on chemo-resistance in breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Gordon Greville; Amanda McCann; Pauline M Rudd; Radka Saldova
Journal:  Epigenetics       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 4.528

9.  An efficient biomarker panel for diagnosis of breast cancer using surface-enhanced laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Turkan Yigitbasi; Gizem Calibasi-Kocal; Nihal Buyukuslu; Murat Kemal Atahan; Hakan Kupeli; Seyran Yigit; Ercument Tarcan; Yasemin Baskin
Journal:  Biomed Rep       Date:  2018-01-15

10.  Increased Cancer Detection Rate and Variations in the Recall Rate Resulting from Implementation of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis into a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Richard E Sharpe; Shambavi Venkataraman; Jordana Phillips; Vandana Dialani; Valerie J Fein-Zachary; Seema Prakash; Priscilla J Slanetz; Tejas S Mehta
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.