Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Breast Cancer pp 99–126Cite as

State of the Art of Current Modalities for the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions

  • Chapter

Abstract

The risks of unjustified use of such techniques and the lack of rational clinical application have increased with the availability of many diagnostic techniques. Errors of this nature would affect the diagnostic accuracy and therefore reduce the possibilities for treatment. It is not uncommon for women and also for general practitioners to be misinformed about which is the most suitable technique, or rather what is the best combination of the various techniques; for this reason, inappropriate tests are often requested or tests which would in fact make a useful contribution to safeguarding the women’s health. This work has the following aims: to state precisely the real diagnostic contribution of each method, both radiological and otherwise, and suggest methods of application and indications consistent with the state of the art and to suggest the most effective and rational blends of the various techniques and organisation of diagnostic activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention (2000) Recommendations on cancer screening in the European Union. Eur J Cancer 36:1473–1478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn CY, Shaw WW, Narayanan K et al (1993) Definitive diagnosis of breast implant rupture using magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:681–691

    Google Scholar 

  • American Cancer Society 1999–2003. Guidelines for clinical cancer prevention American College of Radiology (2000/2001) ACR standard for performance of the breast ultrasound examination. In: Standards of the American College of Radiology. Reston, Va, 389–392

    Google Scholar 

  • American College of Radiology (2003) Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. Reston, VA, ACR

    Google Scholar 

  • Amici F, Baldassarre S, Giuseppetti GM (2000) Imaging in senologia-Testo Atlante. Milano, Paletto

    Google Scholar 

  • ANAES (Agence National d’Accreditation e d’Evaluation de la Santè) (1998) Recommandations pour la pratique clinique. Synthèse des recommandations cancer du sein. Paris, ANAES

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JA, Rosen EL, Lo JY et al (2003) Computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography. AJR 181:1083–1088

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balu-Maestro C, Chapellier C, Bleuse A (2003) Place de l’échographie dans le dépistage du cancer du sein. J Le Sein 13:127–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Bancej C, Decker K, Chiarelli A, et al (2003) Contribution of clinical breast examination to mammography screening in the early detection of breast cancer. J Med Screen 10:16–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bauce A, Benesso S, Galiano A (1998) Relazione tra densità mammografica, età delle pazienti e sensibilità. Radiol Med 5(suppl 1):271

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin L (2001) The missed breast cancer redux: time for educating the public about the limitation of mammography? AJR 176:1131–1134

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW et al (1997) The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial. Cancer 80:2091–2099

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA (1995) Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:670–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J et al (2002) Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:886–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brem RF, Baun J, Lechner M et al (2003) Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. AJR 181:687–693

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burrel HC, Pinder SE et al (1996) The positive predictive value of mammographic signs. Clin Radiol 51:277–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciatto S, Rosselli del Turco M, Burke P et al (2003) Comparison of standard and double reading and computeraided detection (CAD) of interval cancers at prior negative screening mammograms: blind review. Br J Cancer 89:1645–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cilotti A, Bagnolesi P et al (1997): Comparison of the diagnostic performance of high-frequency ultrasound in nonpalpable lesions of the breast. Eur Radiol 7:1240–1244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO et al (2003) Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breast. Radiology 226:153–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Consiglio dell’Unione Europea (2003) Raccomandazioni del 2-12-2003 sullo screening dei tumori. 2003/878/CE G.U. Unione Europea 16.12.2003 L 327/34–37

    Google Scholar 

  • ISTISAN (1995) Controllo di qualità in mammografia: aspetti tecnici e clinici. Istituto superiore di sanità. ISTISAN 95/12 (ISSN 1123-3117), Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuzick J (2003) Epidemiology of breast cancer-selected highlights. Breast 12:405–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo I, Pindaro L, Glorioso V et al (1996) Progetto primavera. Risultati del primo passaggio. In: Piscioli F, Cristofolini M (eds) Modelli operativi di prevenzione secondaria del carcinoma mammario. Trento, Temi, pp 209–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Dao TH, Rahmouni A, Campana F et al (1993) Tumor recurrences versus fibrosis in the irradiated breast: differentiation with dynamic gadolinium enhancement MR imaging. Radiology 187:751–755

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Koning HJ, Draisma G, Fracheboud J et al (2006) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer. Microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data. Breast Cancer Res 8:202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Del Maschio A, De Gaspari A, Panizza P (2002) Risonanza magnetica in senologia. Radiol Med 104:253–261

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dendy PP, Brugmans MJP (2003). Low dose radiation risks. Br J Radiol; 76:674–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deurloo EE, Tanis PJ, Gilhuijs KG et al (2003) Reduction in the number of sentinel lymph node procedures by preoperative ultrasonography of the axilla in breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer 39:1068–1073

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dilhuydy MH, Monnereau A, Barreau B (2003) Le dépistage «à la française».Action programmée ou aménagement du diagnostic précoce individuel? J Le Sein 2: 83–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C (1991) Il servizio di senologia diagnostica. Radiol Med 81:585–591

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C (1993) Lo screening mammografico, questo sconosciuto. Atti LXIX Cong. Soc. It. di Ginecologia (SIGO) Padova La Garangola 122–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C (1996) La diagnosi del tumore della mammella: linee guida ed aspetti organizzativi (UFSD). In: Piscioli F, Cristofolini M (eds) Modelli operativi di prevenzione secondaria del carcinoma mammario. Trento, Temi, pp 361–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C, Giuseppetti G, Gozzi G et al (1994) La mammografia nelle quarantenni: verso un chiarimento definitivo. Radiol Med 87:731–735

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C, Fioretti P, La Grassa M et al (2001) Screening mammografico o diagnostica clinica? Proposta di un modello unificato. Radiol Med 101:326–333

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C, La Grassa M, Pescarini L et al (2003) Interventistica radio-stereoguidata tradizionale e digitale. In: Nori J, Mazzocchi M (eds) Senologia. Stato dell’arte in interventistica. Napoli, Idelson-Gnocchi, pp 9–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C, La Grassa M, Pescarini L et al (2003) Indicazioni al prelievo con ago ed alla scelta metodologica. In: Nori J, Mazzocchi M (eds) Senologia. Stato dell’arte in interventistica. Napoli, Idelson-Gnocchi, pp 33–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C, Gennaro G, La Grassa M et al (2004). Mammografia digitale. Radiol Med 107(suppl 2):15–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio C et al (2004) CHARTA SENOLOGICA. Radiol Med 108:569–587

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH et al (2002) The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 95:458–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • EURWF (2001) European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening. Terza Quarta edizione, 4th edn. EUREF, Gennaio

    Google Scholar 

  • Feig SA (1977) Can breast cancer be radiation induced? In: Logan WW (ed) Breast carcinoma. NewYork, Wiley Medical, pp 5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Feig SA (1992) Breast masses: mammographic and sonographic evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 30:67–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feig SA (1997) Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40–49 years. Cancer 80:2035–2039

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher SW, Elmore JG (2003) Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 348:1672–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freer TW, Ulissey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781–786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gambaccini M, Baldelli P (2003) Mammografia digitale. Principi fisici e sviluppi futuri. Radiol Med 106:454–466

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A, Di Maggio C, Gambaccini M (2003) Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey. Eur Radiol; published online 12 August 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Gennaro G, di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol DOI 10.1007/S00330-006-0314-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuseppetti GM (2002) L’ecografia senologica. Radiol Med 104:1–12

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giuseppetti GM, Martegani A, Di Cioccio B, Baldassarre S (2005) Elastosonografia nella caratterizzazione delle lesioni nodulari della mammella: esperienza preliminare. Radiol Med 1–2:69–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorzica DC, De Bruhl ND, Mund DF, Basset LW (1994) Linguine sign at MR imaging: it represents collapsed silicone implant shell? Radiology 191:576–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg EC (1977) Radiation risks with diagnostic X-rays. Radiology 123:447–453

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie TH (1999) Breast cancer litigation: an update with practice guidelines. Breast J 5:335–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hackshaw AK, Paul EA (2003) Breast self-examination and death from breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 88: 1047–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann LC (2005) Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:229–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey JA, Bovbierg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helbich TH, Matzek W, Fuchsjager MH (2003) Stereotactic and ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Eur Radiol; published online 13 November 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick RE, Basset L, Bosco MA et al (1999) Mammographyquality control manual. Reston, Va, American College of Radiology

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill DA (2005) Breast cancer risk following radioterapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Blood 106:3358–3365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Itoh A, Ueno Ei, Tohno E et al (2006) Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 239:341–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218:497–502

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs T (2002) Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies. To excise or not to excise? Am J Surg Pathol 26:1095–1110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen JA (2001) Ultrasound contrast agents: clinical application. Eur Radiol 11:1329–1337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • James JJ (2004) The current status of digital mammography. Clin Radiol 59:1–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan SS (2001) Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221:641–649

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb T, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (1998) Occult cancer in women with dense breast: normal mammographic and physical examination findings: detection with screening US. Radiology 207:191–199

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factor that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kopans DB (2004) Mammography screening is saving thousands of lives, but will it survive medical malpractice? Radiology 230:20–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl CK, Schmutzer RK, Leutner C et al (2000) Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 215:267–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lamarque JL, Cherifcheikh J, Laurent JC et al (1997) La qualité en mastologie: criterès, contrôle. Montpelier, Manosmed, Tome I, Sauramps médical

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattanzio V, Simonetti G (2002) Mammografia: guida alla refertazione ed alla codifica dei risultati Re.Co.R.M. Napoli, Idelson-Gnocchi srl

    Google Scholar 

  • Law J, Faulkner K (2002) Concerning the relationship between benefit and radiation risk, and cancers detected and induced, in a breast screening programme. Br J Radiol 75:678–684

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lechener M, Nelson M, Elvecrog E (2002) Comparison of two commercially available computer-aided detection (CAD) systems. Appl Radiol 31:31–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD et al (2003) Fast MRIguided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experience. AJR 181:1283–1293

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maijd AS, Shaw de Paredes E, Doherty RD et al (2003) Missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearl. Radiographics 23:881–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marra V, Frigerio A, Di’ Virgilio MR, Coll E (1999) Il carcinoma mammario diagnosticato nello screening mammografico nei passaggi di incidenza. Radiol Med 98:342–346

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez AM, Medina CJ, Bustos C et al (2003) Assessment of breast lesions using Doppler with contrast agents. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 24:527–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt CRB (2001) Technology update. Radiol Clin North Am 39:385–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelson JS, Halpern E, Kopans DB (1999) Breast cancer computer simulation method for estimation of optimal intervals for screening. Radiology 212:551–560

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moon WK, Im JG, Noh DY, Han MC (2000) Non-palpable breast lesion: evaluation with power Doppler US and microbubble contrast agent-initial experience. Radiology 217:240–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris EA (2002) Breast cancer imaging with MR. Radiol Clin North Am 40:349–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moy L, Slanertz P, Moore MA et al (2002) Specificity of mammography and ultrasound in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 225:176–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nori J, Mazzocchi M (2003) Senologia. Stato dell’arte in interventistica. Napoli, Idelson-Gnocchi

    Google Scholar 

  • Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N et al (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oellinger H, Heins S, Sander B et al (1993) Gd-DTPA-enhanced MRI of breast: the most sensitive method for detecting multicentric carcinomas in female breast? Eur Radiol3:223–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panizza P, De Corbelli F, De Gaspari A et al (2003) MR-guided stereotactic breast biopsy: technical aspects and preliminary results. Radiol Med 106:232–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Panizza P, De Gaspari A, Vanzulli A et al (1997) Role of MR mammography (MRM) in planning preoperative chemotherapy treatment and analyzing results. Eur Radiol 7:242

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Schilling KJ et al (2001) Sonographically guided directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy using a handled device. AJR 177:405–408

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perry NM (EUSOMA Working Party) (2001) Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. Eur J Cancer 37:159–172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peto R et al (2000) UK and USA breast cancer deaths down 25% in year 2000 AD ages 20–69 years (letter). Lancet 20:1822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED (2000) Current status of full field digital mammography. Radiology 214:26–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Fajardio LL, Caudry DJ et al (2001) Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable lesion in a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 219:785–792

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) For the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Piscioli F, Cristofolini M (1996) Modelli operativi di prevenzione secondaria del carcinoma della mammella. Trento, Tipolitografia Temi

    Google Scholar 

  • Podo F, Sardanelli F, Canese R et al (2002) The Italian Multi-Centre Project on Evaluation of MRI and Other Imaging Modalities in Early Detection of Mammary Tumors in Subjects at High Genetic Risk. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 21/3:115–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Raja MA, Hubbard A et al (2001) Interval breast cancer: is it a different type of breast cancer? Breast 10:100–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds HE, Buckwalter KA, Jackson VP et al (1994) Comparison of mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of silicone-gel breast implant rupture. Ann Plast Surg 33:247–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rieber A, Zeitler H, Rosenthal H et al (1997) MRI of breast cancer: influence of chemotherapy on sensitivity. Br J Radiol 70:452–458

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzatto G (2001) Towards a more sophisticated use of breast ultrasound. Eur Radiol 11:2425–2435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS (2002) Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 223:221–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosselli del Turco M (1999) Programmi di screening per il carcinoma mammario. In: Veronesi U e Coll (eds) Senologia oncologica. Milano, Masson, pp 165–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer T, Myrvold K, Lomo J et al (2003) Fine-needle aspiration cytology in nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities in breast cancer screening. Breast 12:314–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schorn C, Fischer U, Luftner-Nagel S et al (1999) MRI of the breast in patients with metastatic disease of unknown primary. Eur Radiol 9:470–473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S (1977) Evidence on screening for breast cancer from a randomized trial. Cancer 39:2772–2782

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sharan SK, Morimatsu M, Albrecht U et al (1997) Embryonic lethality and radiation hypersensitivity mediated by Rad51 in mice lacking Brca2. Nature 386: 804–810

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE (2002) Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 224:861–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slanetz PJ, Edmister WB, Weisskoff RM et al (1998) Occult contralateral breast cancer detected by breast MR. Radiology 209:416

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH et al (1995) Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years. Cancer 75/7:1619–1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon B, Orel SG, Reynolds C et al (1998) Delayed development of enhancement in fat necrosis after breast conservation therapy: a potential pitfall of MR imaging of the breast. AJR 170:966–968

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stines J, Noel A, Levy L, et al (2002) Digital mammography and computer-assisted diagnosis. J Radiol 83:581–590

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester PA, Vipond MN, Kutt E (1977) Rate and classification of interval cancers in the breast screening programme. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 79:276–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (2003) Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer)-WHO-OMS. Lyon, IARC Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Teifke A, Lehr HA, Vomweg TW et al (2003) Outcome analysis and rational management of enhancing lesions incidentally detected on contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. AJR 181:655–662

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Bartels KC et al (2000) First experience in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 63:53–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Travis LB, Hill D, Dores GM et al (2003) Breast cancer following radiotherapy and chemotherapy among young women with Hodgkin’s disease. JAMA 290:465–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Travis LB, Hill D, Dores GM et al (2005) Cumulative absolute breast cancer risk for young women treated for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1428–1437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vanara F, Ponti A, Frigerio A et al (1995) Analisi dei costi di un programma di screening mammografico. Epidemiologia e prevenzione 19:318–329

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Viehweg P, Heinig A, Amaya B et al (2002) MR-guided interventional breast procedures considering vacuum biopsy in particular. Eur Radiol 42/1:32–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald NJ, Chamberlain J, Hackshav A (1993) Report of the European Society for Mastology on Breast Cancer Screening. Breast 2:209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren R, Eleti A (2006) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer. Is overdiagnosis an issue for radiologists? Breast Cancer Research 8:205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wasser K, Sinn HP, Fink C et al (2003) Accuracy of tumor size measurement in breast cancer using MRI is influenced by histological regression induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 6:1213–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss NS (2003) Breast cancer mortality in relation to clinical breast examination and breast self-examination. Breast J 9:86–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittingam TA (1999) Tissue harmonic imaging. Eur Radiol 9:323–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L et al (2006) Rate of overdiagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmo mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ 332:689–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zappa M, Falini P, Bonardi D et al (2002) Monitoring interval cancers in mammographic screening: the Florence district programme experience. Breast 11:301–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J et al (1999) Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 213:413–422

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Breast Unit, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Cosimo Di Maggio

Authors
  1. Cosimo Di Maggio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Emilio Bombardieri MD

  2. Division of Medical Oncology Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Luca Gianni MD

  3. Perspective Clinical Trials Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Gianni Bonadonna MD (Chair) (Chair)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Di Maggio, C. (2008). State of the Art of Current Modalities for the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions. In: Bombardieri, E., Gianni, L., Bonadonna, G. (eds) Breast Cancer. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36781-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36781-9_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36780-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36781-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation