Literature DB >> 7074569

So-called interval cancers of the breast. Pathologic and radiologic analysis of sixty-four cases.

R Holland, M Mravunac, J H Hendriks, B V Bekker.   

Abstract

Within a population-based breast cancer screening programs, 209 cancers were detected by regular mammographic screening. Additionally, 66 cancers were discovered between two consecutive screenings after one, two, or three negative screening examinations (interval cancers). The study group consisted of 25,920 women who have been participating since 1975 in a breast cancer screening program in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. In this program, single view mammography (lateromedial projection) was administered as the sole screening examination every two years. Physical examination was not part of the screening program. All previous histologic and radiologic material from 64 of those "interval" patients was available and was reviewed. In 19 of the 64 patients, direct or indirect signs of tumor were seen on the previous screening mammogram on review (observers error). In four cases the site of the tumor lay outside the imaging field (technical error). In 41 cases, no signs of tumor could be seen on the mammograms even on review. By calculated tumor doubling times, 20 of these 41 cases were probably too small to be detected at the last screening ("real" interval cancers). However, 21 cases were probably large enough but were somehow masked from radiologic detection. The mean reasons for this "masking" proved to be: 1) dense breast, 2) poorly outlined tumor mass of diffuse infiltrative type, mainly invasive lobular carcinomas, and 3) intraductal localization. The authors suggest that women with dense breasts be screened more frequently, using more views and modalities and with broader criteria for advising surgical biopsy. They also note that in general the two-year interval between screenings is probably longer than the optimal interval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7074569     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19820615)49:12<2527::aid-cncr2820491220>3.0.co;2-e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  17 in total

Review 1.  [Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems].

Authors:  F Semturs; E Sturm; R Gruber; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Statistical iterative reconstruction to improve image quality for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Shiyu Xu; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Ying Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  The role of mammography in the detection of bilateral primary breast cancer.

Authors:  J G Tinnemans; T Wobbes; J H Hendriks; R Holland; R F Van der Sluis; H H De Boer
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis.

Authors:  Yun-Chung Cheung; Yu-Ching Lin; Yung-Liang Wan; Kee-Min Yeow; Pei-Chin Huang; Yung-Feng Lo; Hsiu-Pei Tsai; Shir-Hwa Ueng; Chee-Jen Chang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Detecting breast cancer.

Authors:  B Bose; P E Burns
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1983-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Assessment of malignancy potential in so-called interval mammary carcinomas.

Authors:  A von Rosen; K Erhardt; L Hellström; A Somell; G Auer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Treatment and survival of female patients with nonpalpable breast carcinoma.

Authors:  J G Tinnemans; T Wobbes; R Holland; J H Hendriks; R F Van der Sluis; H H De Boer
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Linn Abraham; Diana S M Buist; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; My Von Euler-Chelpin; Sisse Helle Njor
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Analysis of interval breast carcinomas in a randomized screening trial in Stockholm.

Authors:  J Frisell; G Eklund; L Hellström; A Somell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.