Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:21:24.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - The detection of small invasive breast cancers by mammography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

By
Michael Michell  and
Rema Wasan
Edited by
Michael J. Michell
Michael J. Michell
Affiliation:
King's College Hospital, London
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Breast Cancer , pp. 99 - 112
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

,Efficacy of screening. In: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Breast Cancer Screen. IARC Press, 2004; 87–102.Google Scholar
Tabar, L, Duffy, S, Vitak, B, et al. The natural history of breast carcinoma. What have we learned from screening? Cancer 1999; 86: 449–62.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nystrom, L, Andersson, I, Bjurstam, N, et al. Long term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002; 359: 909–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabar, L, Yen, MF, Vitak, B, et al. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 2003; 361: 1405–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allgood, PC, Warwick, J, Warren, RML, et al. A case control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast cancer screening programme on breast cancer mortality. Brit J Cancer 2008; 98: 206–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Quality assurance guidelines for radiographers. Sheffield. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS Breast Screening Programme 2000; 30 (revised).Google Scholar
,Quality assurance guidelines for mammography. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS Breast Screening Programme April 2006; 63.Google Scholar
,Quality assurance guidelines for breast cancer screening radiology. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS Breast Screening Programme 2005; 59.Google Scholar
,Consolidation guidance on standards for the NHS Breast Screening Programme. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS Breast Screening Programme 2005; 60.Google Scholar
Ikeda, D, Anderson, I, Wattsgard, C, et al. Interval carcinomas in the Malmo mammographic screening trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. Am J Radiol 1992; 159: 287–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Burrell, H, Sibbering, D, Wilson, ARM, et al. The mammographic features of interval cancers and prognosis compared with screen detected symptomatic breast cancers. Radiology 1996; 199: 811–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, CA, Apthorp, L, Field, S. Second round cancers: How many were visible on the first round of the UK National Breast Screening Programme, three years earlier? Clin Radiol 1998; 53: 25–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabar, L, Dean, PB. Teaching Atlas of Mammography. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme, 2001.Google Scholar
Tabar, L, Dean, PB. Breast Cancer: The Art and Science of Early Detection with Mammography. New York: Thieme, 2004.Google Scholar
Maxwell, A, Gilbert, F, Ridley, N, et al. The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group Imaging Classification. Clin Radiol 2009; 64: 624–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sickles, E. Non-palpable, circumscribed, non-calcified, solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 1994; 192: 439–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michell, MJ. The Breast. In: Sutton, D, ed. Textbook of Radiology and Imaging 7th ed. 2003: 1451–88.
Kirwan, SEM, Denton, ERE, Nash, R, et al. Multiple 14G stereotactic core biopsies in the diagnosis of mammographically detected stellate lesions of the breast. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 763–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, RJ, Jackman, RJ, Parker, SH, et al. Percutaneous core biopsy of radial scars of the breast: when is excision necessary. Amer J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 1179–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagnall, JC, Evans, AJ, Wilson, RW, et al. Predicting invasion in mammographically detected microcalcification. Clin Radiol 2001; 56: 828–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stomper, C, Geradts, J, Edge, S, et al. Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 1679–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillon, MF, McDermott, EW, Quinn, CM, et al. Predictors of invasive disease in breast cancer when core biopsy demonstrates DCIS only. J Surg Oncol 2006; 93; 559–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Flynn, EAM, Morel, JC, Gonzale, J, et al. Prediction of the presence of invasive disease from the measurement of extent of malignant microcalcification on mammography and ductal carcinoma in situ grade at core biopsy. Clin Radiol 2009; 64: 178–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callaway, MP, Boggis, CR, Astley, SA, et al. The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1997; 52: 527–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanks, RG, Wallis, MG, Moss, SM. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. J Med Screen 1998; 5: 195–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, KC, Wallis, MG, Ramsdale, ML. Mammographic film density and detection of small breast cancer. Clin Radiol 1994; 49: 461–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, KC, Wallis, MG, Blanks, RG, et al. Influence of number of views and mammographic film density on the detection of invasive cancers: results from the NHS Breast Screening Programme. Brit J Radiol 1997; 70: 482–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wald, NJ, Murphy, P, Major, P, et al. UKCCCR multicentre randomised control trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. BMJ 1995; 311: 1189–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanks, RG, Moss, SM, Wallis, MG. Use of two view mammography compared with one view in the detection of small invasive cancers: further results from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. J Med Screen 1997; 2: 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patnick, J. NHS Breast Screening: the progression from one to two views. J Med Screen 2004; 11: 55–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hackshaw, AK, Wald, NJ, Michell, MJ, et al. An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than one view in breast cancer screening. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 454–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisano, ED, Gatsonis, C, Hendrick, E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Department of Health Cancer Reform Strategy. London: Department of Health Publication, 2007.
Gilbert, FJ, Astley, SM, Gillan, MGC, et al. Single reading with computer aided detection for screening mammography. New Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1675–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibert, FJ, Astley, SM, McGee, MA, et al. Single reading with computer aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme. Radiology 2006; 241: 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, SP, Tosteson, TD, Kogel, CA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Amer J Roetonol 2007; 189: 616–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, T, Stewart, A, Stanton, M, et al. Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 2007; 30: 365–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklason, LT, Christian, BT, Niklason, , et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205: 399–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, I, Ikeda, DM, Zackrisson, S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Soc Radiol 2008; 8: 1076–9.Google Scholar
,Clinical guidelines for breast cancer screening assessment, second edition. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS Breast Screening Programme 2005; 49.Google Scholar
,Guidelines for non-operative diagnostic procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening. Sheffield. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS Breast Screening Programme 2001; 50.Google Scholar
Hayes, R, Michell, MJ, Nunnerley, HBN. Evaluation of magnification and paddle compression techniques in the assessment of mammographic screening detected abnormalities. Clin Radiol 1991; 44: 158–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teh, WL, Evans, AJ, Wilson, ARW. Definitive non-surgical breast diagnosis: the role of the radiologist. Clin Radiol 1998; 53: 81–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litherland, JC, Evans, AJ, Wilson, ARM, et al. The impact of core-biopsy on preoperative diagnosis rate of screen detected breast cancers. Clin Radiol 1996; 41: 562–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagios, MD. Multicentricity of breast carcinoma demonstrated by routine correlated serial subgross and radiographic examination. Cancer 1977; 40: 1726–34.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, R, Veiling, SH, Mravunae, M,et al. Histologic multifocality of Tis, TI-2 breast carcinomas; implications for clinical trials of breast conserving surgery. Cancer 1985; 56: 979–90.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaidya, J, Vyas, J, Chinoy, R, et al. Multicentricity of breast cancer: whole organ analysis and clinical implications. Brit J Cancer 1996; 74: 820–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×