Literature DB >> 962393

Which breast to biopsy: an expanding dilemma.

J D Lewis, J R Milbrath, K A Shaffer, J C Darin, J J DeCosse.   

Abstract

To provide insight into the significance of findings reported from screening asymptomatic women for breast cancer, we reviewed 19,928 mammographic studies with the accompanying physical examination and correlated these findings with 554 breast biopsies. Of 83 breast biopsies with suspicious findings on both physical examination and mammography, 72 demonstrated breast cancer (87%). Of 155 biopsies for suspicious changes on mammography alone, 50 (32%) demonstrated breast cancer. The accuracy of suspicious mammography was independent of findings limited to physical examination, 34 (17%) had breast cancer; 31 were in 152 biopsies of patients with mammography interpreted as normal (20%) and three were in biopsies of 52 patients (6%) in whom a visualized mass was interpreted as benign. One hundred and twelve breast biopsies were performed for changes interpreted as normal or benign. Six malignancies were discovered (5%). No cancer was found in 31 biopsies for nonpalpable benign mammographic abnormalities. Our results emphasize the importance of discriminating between nonvisualization of a mass and mammographic recognition of either a benign or malignant tumor. The reliability of interpretation is considerably greater for a visualized lesion than a nonvisualized one.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1976        PMID: 962393      PMCID: PMC1344375          DOI: 10.1097/00000658-197609000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  11 in total

1.  Evaluation of mammographic calcifications using a computer program.

Authors:  W G Wee; M Moskowitz; N C Chang; Y C Ting; S Pemmeraju
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  MAMMOGRAPHY AS A ROUTINE SCREENING EXAMINATION FOR DETECTING BREAST CANCER.

Authors:  D M WITTEN; D L THURBER
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1964-07

3.  Xeromammography in early detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  L Kalisher; D L Schaffer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1975-10-06       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Implications of suspicious findings in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  J D Lewis; J R Milbrath; K A Shaffer; T K Das Gupta
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1975-08

5.  Mammography, xeroradiography, and thermography.

Authors:  R L Egan
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.190

6.  Percutaneous needle localization of clustered mammary microcalcifications prior to biopsy.

Authors:  B Threatt; H Appelman; R Dow; T O'Rourke
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1974-08

7.  Analysis of 462 breast carcinomas.

Authors:  J N Wolfe
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1974-08

8.  A surgical perspective of mammography and thermography.

Authors:  G F Schwartz
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 0.688

9.  Value of mammography in reduction of mortality from breast cancer in mass screening.

Authors:  P Strax; L Venet; S Shapiro
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1973-03

10.  Roentgenographic localization of small lesions of the breast by the spot method.

Authors:  N Simon; G J Lesnick; W N Lerer; A L Bachman
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1972-04
View more
  4 in total

1.  Mammography and xerography.

Authors:  P H Niloff
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1977-07-23       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Mammogrphy and xerography.

Authors:  P H Niloff
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1977-04-09       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Review of general surgery 1976.

Authors:  H Ellis
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1977-04       Impact factor: 2.401

4.  Breast biopsy: a study of cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  R C Doberneck
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 12.969

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.