Sonographic characteristics of breast cancers detected by supplemental screening US: Comparison with breast cancers seen on screening mammography

References

• Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy SW, Tabár L, Chen HH, Holmqvist M, Yen MF, Abdsalah S, . The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties: a collaborative evaluation. Cancer 2002;95:458–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276:33–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. Cancer 1995;76:626–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:921–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist A, DeKoekkoek-Doll M, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:325–36.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641–9.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D'Hoore W, . Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1675–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crystal P, Strano S, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:177–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™) ultrasound. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1260–5.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™). Fourth. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, . Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213: 889–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 2007;244:87–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilanus-Linthorst M, Verhoog L, Obdeijn IM, Bartels K, Menke-Pluymers M, Eggermont A, . A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography. Int J Cancer 2002;102:91–5.
   Google Scholar
• Mesurolle B, Kadoch L, El-Khoury M, Lisbona A, Dendukuri N, Foulkes WD. Sonographic features of breast carcinoma presenting as masses in BRCA gene mutation carriers. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26:817–24.
   Google Scholar
• Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, . Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, Pisano ED, Ascher SM, Weatherall PT, . Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007;244:381–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon WK, Myung JS, Lee YJ, Park IA, Noh DY, Im JG. US of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 2002;22: 269–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoonjans JM, Brem RF. Sonographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with ultrasonographically guided large core needle biopsy: correlation with mammographic and pathologic findings. J Ultrasound Med 2000;19:449–57.
   Google Scholar
• Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:941–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar