Literature DB >> 31798391

Consensus Meeting of Breast Imaging: BI-RADS® and Beyond.

Markus Müller-Schimpfle1, Werner Bader2, Pascal Baltzer3, Maria Bernathova3, Michael Fuchsjäger4, Michael Golatta5, Thomas H Helbich3, Karin Hellerhoff6, Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner7, Claudia Kurtz8, Alexander Mundinger9, Katja C Siegmann-Luz10, Per Skaane11, Chistine Solbach12, Stefanie Weigel13.   

Abstract

Organizers of medical educational courses are often confronted with questions that are clinically relevant yet trespassing the frontiers of scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine at the point of care. Therefore, since 2007 organizers of breast teaching courses in German language met biannually to find a consensus in clinically relevant questions that have not been definitely answered by science. The questions were prepared during the 3 months before the meeting according to a structured process and finally agreed upon the day before the consensus meeting. At the consensus meeting, the open questions concerning 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound, MR mammography, interventions as well as risk-based imaging of the breast were presented first for electronic anonymized voting, and then the results of the audience were separately displayed from the expert votes. Thereafter, an introductory statement of the moderator was followed by pros/cons of two experts, and subsequently the final voting was performed. With ≥75% of votes of the expert panel, an answer qualified as a consensus statement. Seventeen consensus statements were gained, addressing for instance the use of 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound in screening, MR mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk, markers for localization of pathologic axillary lymph nodes, and standards in risk-based imaging of the breast. After the evaluation, comments from the experts on each field were gathered supplementarily. Methodology, transparency, and soundness of statements achieve a unique yield for all course organizers and provide solid pathways for decision making in breast imaging.
Copyright © 2019 by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast intervention; Imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Tomosynthesis; Tumor localization; Ultrasound

Year:  2019        PMID: 31798391      PMCID: PMC6883472          DOI: 10.1159/000503412

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)        ISSN: 1661-3791            Impact factor:   2.860


  26 in total

1.  [Consensus Meeting of Course Directors in Breast Imaging, 9 May 2009, in Frankfurt am Main - Topic: Masses].

Authors:  M P Müller-Schimpfle; W Heindel; U Kettritz; R Schulz-Wendtland; U Bick
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2010-06-11

2.  [Consensus meeting of course experts in breast diagnosis 5 May 2007 in Frankfurt am Main--topic: microcalcinosis]].

Authors:  M Müller-Schimpfle
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2008-01

3.  The Coming of Age of Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening.

Authors:  Kristina Lång
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  The Potential Impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on the Benign Biopsy Rate in Women Recalled within the UK Breast Screening Programme.

Authors:  Nisha Sharma; Michelle McMahon; Isobel Haigh; Yan Chen; Barbara J G Dall
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  [Consensus Meeting of Course Directors in Breast Imaging, 7 May 2011, in Frankfurt am Main--topic: MRI of the breast].

Authors:  M P Müller-Schimpfle; W Heindel; U Kettritz; R Schulz-Wendtland; U Bick
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2012-07-31

Review 6.  The potential of multiparametric MRI of the breast.

Authors:  Katja Pinker; Thomas H Helbich; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  Breast density implications and supplemental screening.

Authors:  Athina Vourtsis; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Wire localization of clip-marked axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients treated with primary systemic therapy.

Authors:  Steffi Hartmann; Toralf Reimer; Bernd Gerber; Johannes Stubert; Bernd Stengel; Angrit Stachs
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-06-09       Impact factor: 4.424

9.  A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on the utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice.

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Ritse Mann; Alexandra Athanasiou; Helmut Prosch; Katja Pinker; Matthias Dietzel; Thomas H Helbich; Michael Fuchsjäger; Julia Camps-Herrero; Francesco Sardanelli; Gabor Forrai; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised images versus standard full-field digital mammography in population-based screening (TOSYMA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Stefanie Weigel; Joachim Gerss; Hans-Werner Hense; Miriam Krischke; Alexander Sommer; Jörg Czwoydzinski; Horst Lenzen; Laura Kerschke; Karin Spieker; Stefanie Dickmaenken; Sonja Baier; Marc Urban; Gerold Hecht; Oliver Heidinger; Joachim Kieschke; Walter Heindel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  [Diagnosis of breast diseases in a certified breast center].

Authors:  Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Nicole Herröder; Petra Hödl
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Topical Endoxifen for Mammographic Density Reduction-A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Magnus Bäcklund; Mikael Eriksson; Marike Gabrielson; Mattias Hammarström; Steve Quay; Jenny Bergqvist; Roxanna Hellgren; Kamila Czene; Per Hall
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 5.837

3.  Time to Mammographic Density Decrease After Exposure to Tamoxifen.

Authors:  Magnus Bäcklund; Mikael Eriksson; Mattias Hammarström; Linda Thoren; Jenny Bergqvist; Sara Margolin; Roxanna Hellgren; Yvonne Wengström; Marike Gabrielson; Kamila Czene; Per Hall
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 5.837

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.