Literature DB >> 3282256

Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography.

F M Hall1, J M Storella, D Z Silverstone, G Wyshak.   

Abstract

Carcinoma was found in 30% (119 of 400) of biopsy specimens obtained for mammographically suspicious but nonpalpable findings. The authors reviewed the mammograms of these 400 cases without knowledge of the biopsy results and placed each examination into one of four groups based on their suspicion for carcinoma: minimal (n = 82), slight (n = 91), moderate (n = 174), and high (n = 53). In 127 cases, mammograms showed either minimally suspicious calcifications (n = 33) or minimally (n = 49) or slightly (n = 45) suspicious masses. A 4.7% (six of 127) rate of carcinoma was found in these groups; five of the six cancers were in situ. Had follow-up mammography been done rather than biopsy for these 127 less suspicious lesions, it is probable that the delay in diagnosis would not have altered overall prognosis. In the remaining 273 patients, the positive predictive value of mammography for carcinoma would have risen from 30% (119 of 400) to 41% (113 of 273). The authors conclude that in the management of suspicious nonpalpable mammographic findings, the rate of carcinoma for lesions at biopsy can approximate 40%. This is almost double the rate of most published series.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3282256     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.167.2.3282256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  22 in total

1.  Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Jeff Maxwell; Jay A Baker; Jennifer L Nicholas; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Experience with indeterminate mammograms.

Authors:  P De Neef; J Gandara
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1991-01

3.  Characterization of mammographic masses based on level set segmentation with new image features and patient information.

Authors:  Jiazheng Shi; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Ge; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Alexis Nees; Yi-Ta Wu; Jun Wei; Chuan Zhou; Yiheng Zhang; Jing Cui
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Presentation of similar images as a reference for distinction between benign and malignant masses on mammograms: analysis of initial observer study.

Authors:  Chisako Muramatsu; Robert A Schmidt; Junji Shiraishi; Qiang Li; Kunio Doi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Role of mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer in an inner-city hospital.

Authors:  A P Ekeh; R S Alleyne; A O Duncan
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.798

6.  Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Decis Anal       Date:  2013-09

7.  Stereotactic breast biopsy as an alternative to open excisional biopsy.

Authors:  M J Cross; W P Evans; G N Peters; J H Cheek; R C Jones; P Krakos
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Mammographically detected breast cancer. Benefits of stereotactic core versus wire localization biopsy.

Authors:  J H Yim; P Barton; B Weber; D Radford; J Levy; B Monsees; F Flanagan; J A Norton; G M Doherty
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Is needle-directed breast biopsy overused?

Authors:  M W Shields; R S Smith; M F Bardwil; J K Harness
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1994-03

10.  Validation of results from knowledge discovery: mass density as a predictor of breast cancer.

Authors:  Ryan W Woods; Louis Oliphant; Kazuhiko Shinki; David Page; Jude Shavlik; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.