Literature DB >> 27814813

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening.

Martha B Mainiero1, Ana Lourenco2, Mary C Mahoney3, Mary S Newell4, Lisa Bailey5, Lora D Barke6, Carl D'Orsi4, Jennifer A Harvey7, Mary K Hayes8, Phan Tuong Huynh9, Peter M Jokich10, Su-Ju Lee3, Constance D Lehman11, David A Mankoff12, Joshua A Nepute13, Samir B Patel14, Handel E Reynolds15, M Linda Sutherland16, Bruce G Haffty17.   

Abstract

Mammography is the recommended method for breast cancer screening of women in the general population. However, mammography alone does not perform as well as mammography plus supplemental screening in high-risk women. Therefore, supplemental screening with MRI or ultrasound is recommended in selected high-risk populations. Screening breast MRI is recommended in women at high risk for breast cancer on the basis of family history or genetic predisposition. Ultrasound is an option for those high-risk women who cannot undergo MRI. Recent literature also supports the use of breast MRI in some women of intermediate risk, and ultrasound may be an option for intermediate-risk women with dense breasts. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of other imaging modalities, such as thermography, breast-specific gamma imaging, positron emission mammography, and optical imaging, for breast cancer screening. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.
Copyright © 2013 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Appropriateness criteria; breast MRI; breast cancer; breast ultrasound; mammography; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27814813     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  21 in total

1.  Annual mammography at age 45-49 years and biennial mammography at age 50-69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting.

Authors:  Lauro Bucchi; Alessandra Ravaioli; Flavia Baldacchini; Orietta Giuliani; Silvia Mancini; Rosa Vattiato; Fabio Falcini; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Cinzia Campari; Debora Canuti; Enza Di Felice; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Stefano Ferretti; Nicoletta Bertozzi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Comparative Benefit-to-Radiation Risk Ratio of Molecular Breast Imaging, Two-Dimensional Full-Field Digital Mammography with and without Tomosynthesis, and Synthetic Mammography with Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Matthew Brown; Matthew F Covington
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2019-09-27

3.  Visibility of mammographically occult breast cancer on diffusion-weighted MRI versus ultrasound.

Authors:  Nita Amornsiripanitch; Habib Rahbar; Averi E Kitsch; Diana L Lam; Brett Weitzel; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2017-10-28       Impact factor: 1.605

4.  Is there any relationship between adc values of diffusion-weighted imaging and the histopathological prognostic factors of invasive ductal carcinoma?

Authors:  Hale Aydin; Bahar Guner; Isil Esen Bostanci; Zarife Melda Bulut; Bilgin Kadri Aribas; Lutfi Dogan; Mehmet Ali Gulcelik
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Kinetic Analysis of Lesions Identified on a Rapid Abridged Multiphase (RAMP) Breast MRI Protocol.

Authors:  Sadia Choudhery; Shinn-Huey S Chou; Ken Chang; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Multilevel Predictors of Continued Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Among Women Ages 50-74 Years in a Screening Population.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Marilyn M Schapira; Anne Marie McCarthy; Christopher I Li; Sally D Herschorn; Constance D Lehman; Karen J Wernli; William E Barlow
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Between-Race Differences in Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Before and After Breast Density Notification Law.

Authors:  Mark Manning; Terrance L Albrecht; Suzanne O'Neill; Kristen Purrington
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Underutilization of Supplemental Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Among Patients at High Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Randy Miles; Fei Wan; Tracy L Onega; Amanda Lenderink-Carpenter; Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  MRI Evaluation of the Contralateral Breast in Women with Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer: 2-Year Follow-up.

Authors:  Nanette D Debruhl; Su-Ju Lee; Mary C Mahoney; Lucy Hanna; Catherine Tuite; Constantine A Gatsonis; Constance Lehman
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2019-11-08

10.  Association of Retrospective Peer Review and Positive Predictive Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Needle Biopsies of Breast.

Authors:  Ceren Yalnız; Juliana Rosenblat; David Spak; Wei Wei; Marion Scoggins; Carisa Le-Petross; Mark J Dryden; Beatriz Adrada; Başak E Doğan
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2019-10-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.