U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Bruening W, Launders J, Pinkney N, et al. Effectiveness of Noninvasive Diagnostic Tests for Breast Abnormalities [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2006 Feb. (Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 2.)

Cover
  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Effectiveness of Noninvasive Diagnostic Tests for Breast Abnormalities

Effectiveness of Noninvasive Diagnostic Tests for Breast Abnormalities [Internet].

Show details

References

1.
American Cancer Society (ACS). Cancer facts and figures 2003. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society (ACS); 2003. 48 p. Also available: http://www​.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0​.asp.
2.
Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E. et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55(1):10–30. [PubMed: 15661684]
3.
Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T. et al. Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51(1):15–36. [PubMed: 11577478]
4.
Guinee VF. Epidemiology of breast cancer. In: Bland KI, Copeland EM 3rd, editors. The breast: comprehensive management of benign and malignant diseases. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Philadelphia (PA): W.B. Saunders Company; 1998. p. 339–51.
5.
Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T. et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54(1):8–29. [PubMed: 14974761]
6.
Yeatman TJ, Bland KI. Assessment and designation of breast cancer stage. In: Bland KI, Copeland EM 3rd, editors. The breast: comprehensive management of benign and malignant diseases. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Philadelphia (PA): W.B. Saunders Company; 1998. p. 400–17.
7.
American Cancer Society (ACS). After the tests: staging. [internet]. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society (ACS); 2001 [cited 2002 Jan 2]. [2 p]. Available: http://www​.cancer.org.
8.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Washington (DC): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2002 Feb. 10 p. (AHRQ Pub.; no. 02‐507A). Also available: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/ breastcancer.
9.
Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK. et al. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Sep 3;137(5 Part 1):347–67. [PubMed: 12204020]
10.
Rosato FE, Rosato EL. Examination techniques: roles of the physician and patient in evaluating breast diseases. In: Bland KI, Copeland EM 3rd, editors. The breast: comprehensive management of benign and malignant diseases. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Philadelphia (PA): W.B. Saunders Company; 1998. p. 615–23.
11.
Liberman L, Menell JH. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiol Clin North Am. 2002 May;40(3):409–30. [PubMed: 12117184]
12.
Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Department. Mammography. Omaha (NE): Creighton University School of Medicine; 22 p. Also available: http://radiology.creighton.edu/mammo.html.
13.
Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol. 2005 May;15(5):1027–36. [PubMed: 15856253]
14.
Schillaci O, Buscombe JR. Breast scintigraphy today: indications and limitations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Jun;31(Suppl 1):S35–45. [PubMed: 15103505]
15.
Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992 Mar;158(3):521–6. [PubMed: 1310825]
16.
Khan KS. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests: a guide to methods and application. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Feb;19(1):37–46. [PubMed: 15749064]
17.
Dujardin B, Van den Ende J, Van Gompel A. et al. Likelihood ratios: a real improvement for clinical decision making. Eur J Epidemiol. 1994 Feb;10(1):29–36. [PubMed: 7957786]
18.
Gallagher EJ. Clinical utility of likelihood ratios. Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Mar;31(3):391–7. [PubMed: 9506499]
19.
Eisenberg JM. Derived thresholds. Determining the diagnostic probabilities at which clinicians initiate testing and treatment. Med Decis Making. 1983;3(2):155–68. [PubMed: 6415358]
20.
Barone JE. Evidence-based medicine applied to sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast cancer. Am Surg. 2005 Jan;71(1):66–70. [PubMed: 15757061]
21.
Verkooijen HM. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2000 Mar;82(5):1017–21. [PMC free article: PMC2374424] [PubMed: 10737383]
22.
Kerlikowske K. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Aug 19;139(4):274–84. [PubMed: 12965983]
23.
Yasmeen S. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Mar 19;95(6):429–36. [PubMed: 12644536]
24.
Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K. et al. A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1401–5. [PubMed: 2304219]
25.
Neinstein LS. A review of Society for Adolescent Medicine abstracts and Journal of Adolescent Health Care articles. J Adolesc Health Care. 1987 Mar;8(2):198–203. [PubMed: 3818406]
26.
De Bellefeuille C, Morrison CA, Tannock IF. The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol. 1992 Mar;3(3):187–91. [PubMed: 1586615]
27.
Scherer RW, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. In: Cochrane Library [Cochrane methodology review]. Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software; 2001 [cited 2001 Apr 23]. [35 p]. Available: http://www​.cochranelibrary.com.
28.
Marx WF, Cloft HJ, Do HM. et al. The fate of neuroradiologic abstracts presented at national meetings in 1993: rate of subsequent publication in peer-reviewed, indexed journals. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999;20(6):1173–7. [PMC free article: PMC7056219] [PubMed: 10445467]
29.
Yentis SM, Campbell FA, Lerman J. Publication of abstracts presented at anaesthesia meetings. Can J Anaesth. 1993 Jul;40(7):632–4. [PubMed: 8403137]
30.
Carneiro AV. Applicability of clinical trial results to the individual patient: practice guidelines. Rev Port Cardiol. 2003 Feb;22(2):259–68. [PubMed: 12769004]
31.
Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific; 1994. 620 p.
32.
Lopis R. A personal encounter with a mystery illness. Aust Fam Physician. 1991 Mar;20(3):316–7. [PubMed: 2039419]
33.
Bojia F. Comparison of fine-needle aspiration cytology and excisional biopsy of breast lesions. East Afr Med J. 2001 May;78(5):226–8. [PubMed: 12002079]
34.
Vetrani A. Fine-needle aspiration biopsies of breast masses. An additional experience with 1153 cases (1985 to 1988) and a meta-analysis. Cancer. 1992 Feb 1;69(3):736–40. [PubMed: 1530911]
35.
Abu-Salem OT. Fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of breast lumps: comparison study between pre- and post-operative histological diagnosis. Arch Inst Pasteur Tunis. 2002;79(14):59–63. [PubMed: 15072246]
36.
Ljung BM. Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy is determined by physician training in sampling technique. Cancer. 2001 Aug 25;93(4):263–8. [PubMed: 11507700]
37.
West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Contract no. 290-97-0011. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2002 Apr. 199 p. (Evidence report/technology assessment; no. 47).
38.
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA. et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490. [PMC free article: PMC428525] [PubMed: 15205295]
39.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539–58. [PubMed: 12111919]
40.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327:557–60. [PMC free article: PMC192859] [PubMed: 12958120]
41.
Ioannidis JP, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J. Recursive cumulative meta-analysis: a diagnostic for the evolution of total randomized evidence from group and individual patient data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Apr;52(4):281–91. [PubMed: 10235168]
42.
Lau J, Schmid CH, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol 1995 Jan;48(1):45–57; 59–60. [PubMed: 7853047]
43.
Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993 Jul 30;12(14):1293–316. [PubMed: 8210827]
44.
Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London, England: BMJ Books; 2001. p. 248–82.
45.
Stengel D, Bauwens K, Sehouli J. et al. A likelihood ratio approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. J Med Screen. 2003;10(1):47–51. [PubMed: 12790315]
46.
Banks E. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ. 2004 Aug 28;329(7464):477. [PMC free article: PMC515195] [PubMed: 15331472]
47.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med. 2004 Jun 15;23(11):1663–82. [PubMed: 15160401]
48.
Harbord R, Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics. METAREG: Stata module to perform meta-analysis regression. [software download]. Stockholm, Sweden: EconPapers; 2004 Sep 22 [cited 2004 Nov 3]. Available: http://econpapers​.hhs​.se/software/bocbocode/s446201.htm.
49.
Elan Avinza approved. Pharm Approval Monthly 2002 Apr 1;7(4):56.
50.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). FDG positron emission tomography for evaluating breast cancer - systematic review. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2001. Also available: http://www​.mrw.interscience​.wiley.com/cochrane​/clhta/articles​/HTA-20020419/frame.html.
51.
Holle LH, Trampert L, Lung-Kurt S. et al. Investigations of breast tumors with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1996 Apr;37(4):615–22. [PubMed: 8691251]
52.
Brix G, Henze M, Knopp MV. et al. Comparison of pharmacokinetic MRI and [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the diagnosis of breast cancer: initial experience. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(10):2058–70. [PubMed: 11702142]
53.
Crowe JP Jr, Adler LP, Shenk RR. et al. Positron emission tomography and breast masses: comparison with clinical, mammographic, and pathological findings. Ann Surg Oncol. 1994 Mar;1(2):132–40. [PubMed: 7834438]
54.
Yutani K, Tatsumi M, Shiba E. et al. Comparison of dual-head coincidence gamma camera FDG imaging with FDG PET in detection of breast cancer and axillary lymph node metastasis. J Nucl Med. 1999 Jun;40(6):1003–8. [PubMed: 10452318]
55.
Yutani K, Shiba E, Kusuoka H. et al. Comparison of FDG-PET with MIBI-SPECT in the detection of breast cancer and axillary lymph node metastasis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(2):274–80. [PubMed: 10752892]
56.
Heinisch M, Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P. et al. Comparison of FDG-PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of suggestive breast lesions. Breast. 2003 Feb;12(1):17–22. [PubMed: 14659351]
57.
Walter C, Scheidhauer K, Scharl A. et al. Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions. Eur Radiol. 2003 Jul;13(7):1651–6. [PubMed: 12835981]
58.
Palmedo H, Bender H, Grunwald F. et al. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography in the detection of breast tumours. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997 Sep;24(9):1138–45. [PubMed: 9283107]
59.
Tse NY, Hoh CK, Hawkins RA. et al. The application of positron emission tomographic imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose to the evaluation of breast disease. Ann Surg. 1992 Jul;216(1):27–34. [PMC free article: PMC1242543] [PubMed: 1632699]
60.
Bergmann H. An inter-laboratory comparison study of image quality of PET scanners using the NEMA NU 2-2001 procedure for assessment of image quality. Phys Med Biol. 2005 May 21;50(10):2193–207. [PubMed: 15876661]
61.
Levine EA, Freimanis RI, Perrier ND. et al. Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(1):86–91. [PubMed: 12513966]
62.
McDonough MD, DePeri ER, Mincey BA. The role of positron emission tomographic imaging in breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2004 Jan;6(1):62–8. [PubMed: 14664763]
63.
Avril N, Schelling M, Dose J. et al. Utility of PET in Breast Cancer. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999 Oct;2(5):261–71. [PubMed: 14516650]
64.
Hoh CK, Schiepers C. 18-FDG imaging in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 1999 Jan;29(1):49–56. [PubMed: 9990683]
65.
Bleckmann C, Dose J, Bohuslavizki KH. et al. Effect of attenuation correction on lesion detectability in FDG PET of breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1999 Dec;40(12):2021–4. [PubMed: 10616880]
66.
Doshi NK, Shao Y, Silverman RW. et al. Design and evaluation of an LSO PET detector for breast cancer imaging. Med Phys. 2000 Jul;27(7):1535–43. [PubMed: 10947256]
67.
Yutani K, Tatsumi M, Uehara T. et al. Effect of patients' being prone during FDG PET for the diagnosis of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Nov;173(5):1337–9. [PubMed: 10541114]
68.
Rosen EL, Turkington TG, Soo MS. et al. Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: initial experience. Radiology. 2005 Feb;234(2):527–34. [PubMed: 15671006]
69.
Bhargava P, Zhuang H, Kumar R. et al. Iatrogenic artifacts on whole-body F-18 FDG PET imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2004 Jul;29(7):429–39. [PubMed: 15192468]
70.
Murthy K, Aznar M, Bergman AM. et al. Positron emission mammographic instrument: initial results. Radiology. 2000 Apr;215(1):280–5. [PubMed: 10751499]
71.
Boerner AR, Weckesser M, Herzog H. et al. Optimal scan time for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999 Mar;26(3):226–30. [PubMed: 10079312]
72.
Wahl RL. Current status of PET in breast cancer imaging, staging, and therapy. Semin Roentgenol. 2001 Jul;36(3):250–60. [PubMed: 11475071]
73.
Marshall C, Mustafa S, Wheatley DC. et al. A comparison of 18F-FDG gamma camera PET, mammography and ultrasonography in demonstrating primary disease in locally advanced breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2004 Jul;25(7):721–5. [PubMed: 15208500]
74.
Cronin B, Marsden PK, O'Doherty MJ. Are restrictions to behaviour of patients required following fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic studies. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999 Feb;26(2):121–8. [PubMed: 9933345]
75.
Silberstein EB. Prevalence of adverse reactions to positron emitting radiopharmaceuticals in nuclear medicine. Pharmacopeia Committee of the Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med. 1998 Dec;39(12):2190–2. [PubMed: 9867168]
76.
Katanick SL. Fundamentals of ICANL accreditation. J Nucl Med Technol. 2005 Mar;33(1):19–23. [PubMed: 15731016]
77.
Hillner BE. Decision analysis: MIBI imaging of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. J Nucl Med. 1997 Nov;38(11):1772–8. [PubMed: 9374352]
78.
Allen MW, Hendi P, Schwimmer J. et al. Decision analysis for the cost effectiveness of sestamibi scintimammography in minimizing unnecessary biopsies. Q J Nucl Med. 2000 Jun;44(2):168–85. [PubMed: 10967626]
79.
Liberman M, Sampalis F, Mulder DS. et al. Breast cancer diagnosis by scintimammography: a meta-analysis and review of the literature (Provisional record). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;80(1):115–26. [PubMed: 12889605]
80.
Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Scintimammography. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 2003. Also available: http://www​.mrw.interscience​.wiley.com/cochrane​/clhta/articles​/HTA-20040735/frame.html.
81.
Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making. 1993;13(4):313–21. [PubMed: 8246704]
82.
Sampalis FS, Denis R, Picard D. et al. International prospective evaluation of scintimammography with (99m)technetium sestamibi. Am J Surg. 2003 Jun;185(6):544–9. [PubMed: 12781883]
83.
Khalkhali I, Baum JK, Villanueva-Meyer J. et al. (99m)Tc sestamibi breast imaging for the examination of patients with dense and fatty breasts: multicenter study. Radiology. 2002 Jan;222(1):149–55. [PubMed: 11799940]
84.
Scopinaro F, Schillaci O, Ussof W. et al. A three center study on the diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-MIBI scintimammography. Anticancer Res. 1997;17(3B):1631–4. [PubMed: 9179208]
85.
Tofani A, Sciuto R, Semprebene A. et al. 99Tcm-MIBI scintimammography in 300 consecutive patients: factors that may affect accuracy. Nucl Med Commun. 1999 Dec;20(12):1113–21. [PubMed: 10664992]
86.
Mekhmandarov S, Sandbank J, Cohen M. et al. Technetium-99m-MIBI scintimammography in palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions. J Nucl Med. 1998 Jan;39(1):86–91. [PubMed: 9443742]
87.
Danielsson R, Bone B, Gad A. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of planar scintimammography with 99mTc‐sestamibi. Acta Radiol. 1999 Jul;40(4):394–9. [PubMed: 10394867]
88.
Wilczek B, Aspelin P, Bone B. et al. Complementary use of scintimammography with 99m-Tc-MIBI to triple diagnostic procedure in palpable and non-palpable breast lesions. Acta Radiol. 2003 May;44(3):288–93. [PubMed: 12752000]
89.
Krishnaiah G, Sher-Ahmed A, Ugwu-Dike M. et al. Technetium-99m sestamibi scintimammography complements mammography in the detection of breast cancer. Breast J. 2003;9(4):288–94. [PubMed: 12846862]
90.
Obwegeser R, Berghammer P, Rodrigues M. et al. A head-to-head comparison between technetium-99m-tetrofosmin and technetium-99m-MIBI scintigraphy to evaluate suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999 Dec;26(12):1553–9. [PubMed: 10638406]
91.
Koukouraki S, Koukourakis MI, Vagios E. et al. The role of 99m Tc-sestamibi scintimammography and colour Doppler ultrasonography in the evaluation of breast lesions. Nucl Med Commun. 2001 Nov;22(11):1243–8. [PubMed: 11606891]
92.
Schillaci O, Scopinaro F, Danieli R. et al. 99Tcm-sestamibi scintimammography in patients with suspicious breast lesions: comparison of SPET and planar images in the detection of primary tumours and axillary lymph node involvement. Nucl Med Commun. 1997 Sep;18(9):839–45. [PubMed: 9352550]
93.
Villanueva-Meyer J, Leonard MH Jr, Briscoe E. et al. Mammoscintigraphy with technetium-99m-sestamibi in suspected breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1996 Jun;37(6):926–30. [PubMed: 8683313]
94.
Chen SL, Yin YQ, Chen JX. et al. The usefulness of technetium-99m-MIBI scintimammography in diagnosis of breast cancer: using surgical histopathologic diagnosis as the gold standard. Anticancer Res. 1997;17(3B):1695–8. [PubMed: 9179221]
95.
Tiling R, Sommer H, Pechmann M. et al. Comparison of technetium-99m-sestamibi scintimammography with contrast- enhanced MRI for diagnosis of breast lesions. J Nucl Med. 1997 Jan;38(1):58–62. [PubMed: 8998151]
96.
Palmedo H, Grunwald F, Bender H. et al. Scintimammography with technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile: comparison with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996 Aug;23(8):940–6. [PubMed: 8753683]
97.
Leidenius MH, Leppanen EA, Tykka HT. et al. The role of Tc99m-sestamibi scintimammography in combination with the triple assessment of primary breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2002 Mar;28(2):108–12. [PubMed: 11884044]
98.
Imbriaco M, Del Vecchio S, Riccardi A. et al. Scintimammography with 99mTc-MIBI versus dynamic MRI for non-invasive characterization of breast masses. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001 Jan;28(1):56–63. [PubMed: 11202453]
99.
Papantoniou V, Christodoulidou J, Papadaki E. et al. 99mTc-(V)DMSA scintimammography in the assessment of breast lesions: comparative study with 99mTc-MIBI. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001 Jul;28(7):923–8. [PubMed: 11504092]
100.
Sanidas EE, Koukouraki S, Velidaki A. et al. Contribution of 99mTc-anti-carcinoembryonic antigen antibody and 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography in the evaluation of high risk palpable breast lesions. Nucl Med Commun. 2003 Mar;24(3):291–6. [PubMed: 12612470]
101.
Gutfilen B, Fonseca LM. Comparison of Tc-99m THY and Tc-99m MIBI scans for diagnosis of breast lesions. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Sep;20(3):385–91. [PubMed: 11718219]
102.
Yuen-Green M, Wasnich R, Caindec-Ranchez S. et al. New method for breast cancer detection using TC-99m sestamibi scintimammography. Hawaii Med J. 1996 Feb;55(2):26–8. [PubMed: 8820628]
103.
Alonso O, Massardo T, Delgado LB. et al. Is (99m)Tc-sestamibi scintimammography complementary to conventional mammography for detecting breast cancer in patients with palpable masses. J Nucl Med. 2001 Nov;42(11):1614–21. [PubMed: 11696629]
104.
Ambrus E, Rajtar M, Ormandi K. et al. Value of 99m-Tc MIBI and 99m-Tc(V) DMSA scintigraphy in evaluation of breast mass lesions. Anticancer Res. 1997;17(3B):1599–605. [PubMed: 9179201]
105.
Burak Z, Argon M, Memis A. et al. Evaluation of palpable breast masses with 99Tcm-MIBI: a comparative study with mammography and ultrasonography. Nucl Med Commun. 1994 Aug;15(8):604–12. [PubMed: 7970442]
106.
Palmedo H, Schomburg A, Grunwald F. et al. Scintimammography with Tc-99m MIBI in patients with suspicion of primary breast cancer. Nucl Med Biol. 1996 Aug;23(6):681–4. [PubMed: 8940710]
107.
Palmedo H, Schomburg A, Grunwald F. et al. Technetium-99m-MIBI scintimammography for suspicious breast lesions. J Nucl Med. 1996 Apr;37(4):626–30. [PubMed: 8691253]
108.
Chen S, Liu W, Mao Y. et al. 99 mTc-MIBI and 99 mTc-MDP scintimammography for detecting breast carcinoma. Chin Med J. 2000;113(5):400–3. [PubMed: 11776092]
109.
Carril JM, Gomez-Barquin R, Quirce R. et al. Contribution of 99mTc-MIBI scintimammography to the diagnosis of non- palpable breast lesions in relation to mammographic probability of malignancy. Anticancer Res. 1997;17(3B):1677–81. [PubMed: 9179217]
110.
Aguilar J, Andres B, Nicolas F. et al. Value of 99mTc-MIBI scintimammography in women with impalpable breast lesions seen on mammography. Eur J Surg. 2001 May;167(5):344–6. [PubMed: 11419548]
111.
Bekis R. 99mTc sestamibi scintimammography. Screening mammographic non-palpable suspicious breast lesions: preliminary results. Nucl Med (Stuttg). 2004 Feb;43(1):16–20. [PubMed: 14978536]
112.
Maffioli L, Agresti R, Chiti A. et al. Prone scintimammography in patients with non-palpable breast lesions. Anticancer Res. 1996;16(3A):1269–73. [PubMed: 8702249]
113.
Fondrinier E, Muratet JP, Anglade E. et al. Clinical experience with 99mTc-MIBI scintimammography in patients with breast microcalcifications. Breast. 2004 Aug;13(4):316–20. [PubMed: 15325666]
114.
Spanu A, Schillaci O, Meloni GB. et al. The usefulness of 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT scintimammography in the detection of small size primary breast carcinomas. Int J Oncol. 2002 Oct;21(4):831–40. [PubMed: 12239623]
115.
Khalkhali I, Vargas HI. The role of nuclear medicine in breast cancer detection: functional breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2001 Sep;39(5):1053–68. [PubMed: 11587058]
116.
Khalkhali I, Caravaglia G, Abdel-Nabi HH, et al. Society of Nuclear Medicine procedure guideline for breast scintigraphy. version 2.0. Reston (VA): Society of Nuclear Medicine; 2004 Jun 2. 4 p. Also available: http://interactive​.snm​.org/docs/Breast_v2.0.pdf.
117.
Coover LR, Caravaglia G, Kuhn P. Scintimammography with dedicated breast camera detects and localizes occult carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2004 Apr;45(4):553–8. [PubMed: 15073249]
118.
Yildiz A, Colak T, Gungor F. et al. Diagnostic value of 99mTc MIBI scintimammography in patients with breast lesions. Rev Esp Med Nucl. 2001 Jun;20(4):276–81. [PubMed: 11440709]
119.
Bombardieri E, Crippa F, Baio SM. et al. Nuclear medicine advances in breast cancer imaging. Tumori. 2001;87(5):277–87. [PubMed: 11765174]
120.
Clarke EA, Notghi A, Harding LK. Can reduced imaging times be used for scintimammography. Nucl Med Commun. 1999 Oct;20(10):883–6. [PubMed: 10528291]
121.
Edell SL, Eisen MD. Current imaging modalities for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Del Med J. 1999 Sep;71(9):377–82. [PubMed: 10584437]
122.
Zegel H, Heller L, Edell S. et al. Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography in the mammographically dense breast. Clin Nucl Med. 1999 Dec;24(12):968–74. [PubMed: 10595479]
123.
Monticciolo DL. How useful are new radiographic tools for detecting breast cancer. Postgrad Med. 2004 Mar;115(3):76–7. [PubMed: 15038257]
124.
Thomson LE, Allman KC. Erythema multiforme reaction to sestamibi. J Nucl Med. 2001 Mar;42(3):534. [PubMed: 11337537]
125.
Hesslewood SR, Keeling DH. Frequency of adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals in Europe. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997 Sep;24(9):1179–82. [PubMed: 9283115]
126.
Silberstein EB, Ryan J. Prevalence of adverse reactions in nuclear medicine. Pharmacopeia Committee of the Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med. 1996 Jan;37(1):185–92. [PubMed: 8543992]
127.
Klaus AJ, Klingensmith WC 3rd, Parker SH. et al. Comparative value of 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography and sonography in the diagnostic workup of breast masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Jun;174(6):1779–83. [PubMed: 10845522]
128.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBS). Breast MRI for detection or diagnosis of primary or recurrent breast cancer. Chicago (IL): Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; 2004 Apr. 88 p. (TEC Assessment Program; vol. 19, no. 1). Also available: http://www​.mrw.interscience​.wiley.com/cochrane​/clhta/articles​/HTA-20040234/frame.html. [PubMed: 15314823]
129.
Hrung JM, Sonnad SS, Schwartz JS. et al. Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis (Structured abstract). Acad Radiol. 1999;6(7):387–97. [PubMed: 10410164]
130.
Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004 Dec 8;292(22):2735–42. [PubMed: 15585733]
131.
Heiberg EV, Perman WH, Herrmann VM. et al. Dynamic sequential 3D gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the whole breast. Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;14(4):337–48. [PubMed: 8782170]
132.
Obdeijn IM, Kuijpers TJ, van Dijk P. et al. MR lesion detection in a breast cancer population. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6(6):849–54. [PubMed: 8956127]
133.
Hachiya J, Seki T, Okada M. et al. MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA enhancement: comparison with mammography and ultrasonography. Radiat Med. 1991;9(6):232–40. [PubMed: 1668410]
134.
Cecil KM, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES. et al. The evaluation of human breast lesions with magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001 Jul;68(1):45–54. [PubMed: 11678308]
135.
Del Maschio A, Bazzocchi M, Giuseppetti GM. et al. Breast MRI: report on a multicentric national trial by the Study Section of Magnetic Resonance and Breast Imaging. Radiol Med (Torino). 2002 Oct;104(4):262–72. [PubMed: 12569307]
136.
Nakahara H, Namba K, Fukami A. et al. Three-dimensional MR imaging of mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications. Breast Cancer. 2001;8(2):116–24. [PubMed: 11342984]
137.
Malich A, Boehm T, Facius M. et al. Differentiation of mammographically suspicious lesions: evaluation of breast ultrasound, MRI mammography and electrical impedance scanning as adjunctive technologies in breast cancer detection. Clin Radiol. 2001 Apr;56(4):278–83. [PubMed: 11286578]
138.
Knopp MV, Bourne MW, Sardanelli F. et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Sep;181(3):663–76. [PubMed: 12933457]
139.
Huang W, Fisher PR, Dulaimy K. et al. Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity. Radiology. 2004 Aug;232(2):585–91. [PubMed: 15205478]
140.
Magnetic resonance imaging systems. Health Devices 2005 Apr 1;34(4):117–38. [PubMed: 15945465]
141.
Paakko E, Reinikainen H, Lindholm EL. et al. Low-field versus high-field MRI in diagnosing breast disorders. Eur Radiol. 2005 Jul;15(7):1361–8. [PubMed: 15711841]
142.
Yen YF, Han KF, Daniel BL. et al. Dynamic breast MRI with spiral trajectories: 3D versus 2D. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;11(4):351–9. [PubMed: 10767063]
143.
Sardanelli F, Rescinito G, Giordano GD. et al. MR dynamic enhancement of breast lesions: high temporal resolution during the first-minute versus eight-minute study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(5):724–31. [PubMed: 11045693]
144.
Sardanelli F, Lozzelli A, Fausto A. MR imaging of the breast: indications, established technique, and new directions. Eur Radiol 2003 Nov;13 Suppl 3(N28–36. [PubMed: 15015878]
145.
Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology. 2001 Jul;220(1):13–30. [PubMed: 11425968]
146.
Lee CH. Problem solving MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004 Sep;42(5):919–34. [PubMed: 15337425]
147.
Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Wiberg MK. et al. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast. Analysis of kinetic and morphologic diagnostic criteria. Acta Radiol. 2003 Jul;44(4):379–86. [PubMed: 12846687]
148.
Kuhl CK, Klaschik S, Mielcarek P. et al. Do T2-weighted pulse sequences help with the differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions in dynamic breast MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Feb;9(2):187–96. [PubMed: 10077012]
149.
Schnall MD, Rosten S, Englander S. et al. A combined architectural and kinetic interpretation model for breast MR images. Acad Radiol. 2001 Jul;8(7):591–7. [PubMed: 11450959]
150.
Agoston AT, Daniel BL, Herfkens RJ. et al. Intensity-modulated parametric mapping for simultaneous display of rapid dynamic and high-spatial-resolution breast MR imaging data. Radiographics. 2001;21(1):217–26. [PubMed: 11158656]
151.
American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR); 2003. ACR BI-RADS - Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
152.
Helbich TH. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Eur J Radiol. 2000 Jun;34(3):208–19. [PubMed: 10927162]
153.
Artemov D, Revelon G, Atalar E. et al. Switchable multicoil array for MR micro-imaging of breast lesions. Magn Reson Med. 1999 Mar;41(3):569–74. [PubMed: 10204882]
154.
Shen GX, Wu J, Boada FE. Multiple channel phased arrays for echo planar imaging. MAGMA. 2000 Dec;11(3):138–43. [PubMed: 11154955]
155.
Friedman PD, Swaminathan SV, Smith R. SENSE imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Feb;184(2):448–51. [PubMed: 15671362]
156.
Morris EA. Breast cancer imaging with MRI. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002 May;40(3):443–66. [PubMed: 12117186]
157.
Orel SG. MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Jul;38(4):899–913. [PubMed: 10943285]
158.
Sardanelli F, Iozzelli A, Fausto A. Contrast agents and temporal resolution in breast MR imaging. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2002 Sep;21(3 Suppl):69–75. [PubMed: 12585658]
159.
National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) [database online]. Chicago (IL): American College of Surgeons (ACS); 1996‐1998 [cited 1999 Mar 5]. Relative survival of breast cancer patients by AJCC stage of disease at diagnosis, 1985-1990 cases [table]. [3 p]. Available: http://www​.facs.org/about_college​/acsdept​/cancer_dept/programs​/ncdb/breastcancer4.html.
160.
Coulthard A, Potterton AJ. Pitfalls of breast MRI. Br J Radiol. 2000 Jun;73(870):665–71. [PubMed: 10911793]
161.
Kuhl CK, Schild HH. Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Dec;12(6):965–74. [PubMed: 11105038]
162.
Chen W, Giger ML, Lan L. et al. Computerized interpretation of breast MRI: investigation of enhancement-variance dynamics. Med Phys. 2004 May;31(5):1076–82. [PubMed: 15191295]
163.
Partridge SC, Heumann EJ, Hylton NM. Semi-automated analysis for MRI of breast tumors. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1999;62:259–60. [PubMed: 10538368]
164.
Szabo BK, Wiberg MK, Bone B. et al. Application of artificial neural networks to the analysis of dynamic MR imaging features of the breast. Eur Radiol. 2004 Jul;14(7):1217–25. [PubMed: 15034745]
165.
Kelcz F, Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld D. et al. Clinical testing of high-spatial-resolution parametric contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Dec;179(6):1485–92. [PubMed: 12438042]
166.
Liney GP, Gibbs P, Hayes C. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the differentiation of breast tumors: user‐defined versus semi-automated region-of-interest analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Dec;10(6):945–9. [PubMed: 10581507]
167.
Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Bick U, Bradley WG Jr. et al. International investigation of breast MRI: results of a multicentre study (11 sites) concerning diagnostic parameters for contrast-enhanced MRI based on 519 histopathologically correlated lesions. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(4):531–46. [PubMed: 11354744]
168.
Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A, Pickuth D. et al. Interventional MRI of the breast: lesion localisation and biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(1):36–45. [PubMed: 10663716]
169.
Schedel H. Magnetic Resonance Female Breast Imaging (MRFBI) - Evaluation of the Changes in Signal Intensity over Time Pre- and Post-administration of 0.2 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2002 Feb;124(2):104–10. [PubMed: 11935495]
170.
Morris EA. Review of breast MRI: indications and limitations. Semin Roentgenol. 2001 Jul;36(3):226–37. [PubMed: 11475069]
171.
Rieber A, Nussle K, Merkle E. et al. MR mammography: influence of menstrual cycle on the dynamic contrast enhancement of fibrocystic disease. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(6):1107–12. [PubMed: 10415244]
172.
Runge VM. Safety of approved MR contrast media for intravenous injection. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Aug 1;12(2):205–13. [PubMed: 10931582]
173.
Medical magnetic resonance (MR) procedures: protection of patients. Health Phys 2004 Aug;87(2):197–216. [PubMed: 15257220]
174.
Shellock FG. Radiofrequency energy-induced heating during MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Jul;12(1):30–6. [PubMed: 10931562]
175.
Fiek M, Remp T, Reithmann C. et al. Complete loss of ICD programmability after magnetic resonance imaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2004 Jul;27(7):1002–4. [PubMed: 15271024]
176.
Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance safety update 2002: implants and devices. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Nov;16(5):485–96. [PubMed: 12412025]
177.
Foster JR, Hall DA, Summerfield AQ. et al. Sound-level measurements and calculations of safe noise dosage during EPI at 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Jul;12(1):157–63. [PubMed: 10931575]
178.
Dempsey MF, Condon B, Hadley DM. Investigation of the factors responsible for burns during MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Apr;13(4):627–31. [PubMed: 11276109]
179.
Shellock FG, Crues JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology. 2004 Sep;232(3):635–52. [PubMed: 15284433]
180.
Shellock FG. Biomedical implants and devices: Assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Dec;16(6):721–32. [PubMed: 12451586]
181.
Feychting M. Health effects of static magnetic fields--a review of the epidemiological evidence. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2005;87(23):241–6. [PubMed: 15556662]
182.
Hong CZ, Shellock FG. Short-term exposure to a 1.5 tesla static magnetic field does not affect somato-sensory-evoked potentials in man. Magn Reson Imaging. 1990;8(1):65–9. [PubMed: 2325519]
183.
Shellock FG, Schaefer DJ, Gordon CJ. Effect of a 1.5 T static magnetic field on body temperature of man. Magn Reson Med. 1986 Aug;3(4):644–7. [PubMed: 3747826]
184.
Budinger TF. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in vivo studies: known thresholds for health effects. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1981 Dec;5(6):800–11. [PubMed: 7033311]
185.
Brice J. Experts put MRI accreditation program to the test. Diagn Imaging 2001 Jul;23(7):44–7, 49.
186.
Skaane P. Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors. Acta Radiol Suppl. 1999;420:7–47. [PubMed: 10693544]
187.
Flobbe K. Costs and effects of ultrasonography in the evaluation of palpable breast masses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 Fall;20(4):440–8. [PubMed: 15609793]
188.
Flobbe K, Bosch AM, Kessels AG. et al. The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2003 May 26;163(10):1194–9. [PubMed: 12767956]
189.
Meyberg-Solomayer GC, Kraemer B, Bergmann A. et al. Does 3-D sonography bring any advantage to noninvasive breast diagnostics. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004 May;30(5):583–9. [PubMed: 15183222]
190.
Chao TC, Lo YF, Chen SC. et al. Prospective sonographic study of 3093 breast tumors. J Ultrasound Med. 1999 May;18(5):363–70. [PubMed: 10327015]
191.
Chen SC, Cheung YC, Su CH. et al. Analysis of sonographic features for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors of different sizes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;23(2):188–93. [PubMed: 14770402]
192.
Perre CI, Koot VC, de Hooge P. et al. The value of ultrasound in the evaluation of palpable breast tumours: a prospective study of 400 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1994 Dec;20(6):637–40. [PubMed: 7995413]
193.
van Oord JC. The value of ultrasound mammography in palpable breast masses. Rofo. 1991 Jul;155(1):63–6. [PubMed: 1854938]
194.
McNicholas MM, Mercer PM, Miller JC. et al. Color Doppler sonography in the evaluation of palpable breast masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993 Oct;161(4):765–71. [PubMed: 8372754]
195.
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM standard for the performance of breast ultrasound examination. Laurel (MD): American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; 2002. 6 p. Also available: http://www.aium.org/publications/clinical/breast.pdf. [PubMed: 12523617]
196.
American College of Radiology. Breast ultrasound accreditation program requirements. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 2005. 9 p. Also available: http://www​.acr.org/s_acr/bin​.asp?CID=591&DID​=12137&DOC=FILE.PDF.
197.
Watson L. The role of ultrasound in breast imaging. Radiol Technol. 2000;71(5):441–59. quiz 460–2. [PubMed: 10840855]
198.
Baker JA, Soo MS, Rosen EL. Artifacts and pitfalls in sonographic imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 May;176(5):1261–6. [PubMed: 11312192]
199.
Drukker K, Giger ML, Horsch K. et al. Computerized lesion detection on breast ultrasound. Med Phys. 2002 Jul;29(7):1438–46. [PubMed: 12148724]
200.
Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS. et al. Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Jun;172(6):1621–5. [PubMed: 10350302]
201.
Weinstein SP, Conant EF, Mies C. et al. Posterior acoustic shadowing in benign breast lesions: sonographic-pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Jan;23(1):73–83. [PubMed: 14756356]
202.
Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC. et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999 Dec;213(3):889–94. [PubMed: 10580971]
203.
Murad M, Bari V. Ultrasound differentiation of benign versus malignant solid breast masses. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2004 Mar;14(3):166–9. [PubMed: 15228851]
204.
Skaane P, Engedal K, Skjennald A. Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging. Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses. Acta Radiol. 1997 Jul;38(4 Pt 1):497–502. [PubMed: 9240666]
205.
Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL. et al. Interexamination variation of whole breast ultrasound. Br J Radiol. 2003 May;76(905):328–31. [PubMed: 12763948]
206.
Shimamoto K, Sawaki A, Ikede M. et al. Interobserver agreement in sonographic diagnosis of breast tumors. Eur J Ultrasound. 1998 Sep;8(1):25–31. [PubMed: 9795006]
207.
Smith AP, Hall PA, Marcello DM. Emerging technologies in breast cancer detection. Radiol Manage. 2004;26(4):16–24. quiz 25–7. [PubMed: 15377106]
208.
Siegmann KC, Muller-Schimpfle M, Schick F. et al. MR imaging-detected breast lesions: histopathologic correlation of lesion characteristics and signal intensity data. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jun;178(6):1403–9. [PubMed: 12034606]
209.
Boonjunwetwat D, Prathombutr A. Imaging of benign papillary neoplasm of the breast: mammographic, galactographic and sonographic findings. J Med Assoc Thai. 2000 Aug;83(8):832–8. [PubMed: 10998834]
210.
Adler LP, Crowe JP, al-Kaisi NK. et al. Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [F-18] 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET. Radiology. 1993 Jun;187(3):743–50. [PubMed: 8497624]
211.
Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler SI. et al. Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis. J Nucl Med. 1997 Aug;38(8):1186–91. [PubMed: 9255146]
212.
Avril N, Dose J, Janicke F. et al. Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Jun;14(6):1848–57. [PubMed: 8656253]
213.
Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M. et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Oct 15;18(20):3495–502. [PubMed: 11032590]
214.
Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T. et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002 Oct;29(10):1317–23. [PubMed: 12271413]
215.
Danforth DN Jr, Aloj L, Carrasquillo JA. et al. The role of 18F-FDG-PET in the local/regional evaluation of women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002 Sep;75(2):135–46. [PubMed: 12243506]
216.
Fujiwara T, Miyake M, Watanuki S. et al. Easy detection of tumor in oncologic whole-body PET by projection reconstruction images with maximum intensity projection algorithm. Ann Nucl Med. 1999 Jun;13(3):199–203. [PubMed: 10435383]
217.
Inoue T, Yutani K, Taguchi T. et al. Preoperative evaluation of prognosis in breast cancer patients by [(18)F]2-Deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2004 May;130(5):273–8. [PubMed: 14986112]
218.
Murthy K, Aznar M, Thompson CJ. et al. Results of preliminary clinical trials of the positron emission mammography system PEM-I: a dedicated breast imaging system producing glucose metabolic images using FDG. J Nucl Med. 2000 Nov;41(11):1851–8. [PubMed: 11079494]
219.
Nieweg OE, Wong WH, Singletary SE. et al. Positron emission tomography of glucose metabolism in breast cancer. Potential for tumor detection, staging, and evaluation of chemotherapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993 Nov 30;698:423–8. [PubMed: 8279782]
220.
Noh DY, Yun IJ, Kim JS. et al. Diagnostic value of positron emission tomography for detecting breast cancer. World J Surg. 1998 Mar;22(3):223–7. discussion 227–8. [PubMed: 9494412]
221.
Pietrzyk U, Scheidhauer K, Scharl A. et al. Presurgical visualization of primary breast carcinoma with PET emission and transmission imaging. J Nucl Med. 1995 Oct;36(10):1882–4. [PubMed: 7562059]
222.
Scheidhauer K, Scharl A, Pietrzyk U. et al. Qualitative [18F]FDG positron emission tomography in primary breast cancer: clinical relevance and practicability. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996 Jun;23(6):618–23. [PubMed: 8662094]
223.
Smyczek-Gargya B. PET with [18F]fluorothymidine for imaging of primary breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 May;31(5):720–4. [PubMed: 14991243]
224.
Arslan N, Ozturk E, Ilgan S. et al. 99Tcm-MIBI scintimammography in the evaluation of breast lesions and axillary involvement: a comparison with mammography and histopathological diagnosis. Nucl Med Commun. 1999 Apr;20(4):317–25. [PubMed: 10319351]
225.
Aziz A, Hashmi R, Ogawa Y. et al. Tc-99m-MIBI scintimammography; SPECT versus planar imaging. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 1999 Dec;14(6):495–500. [PubMed: 10850336]
226.
Becherer A, Helbich T, Staudenherz A. et al. The diagnostic value of planar and SPET scintimammography in different age groups. Nucl Med Commun. 1997 Aug;18(8):710–8. [PubMed: 9293501]
227.
Buscombe JR, Cwikla JB, Holloway B. et al. Prediction of the usefulness of combined mammography and scintimammography in suspected primary breast cancer using ROC curves. J Nucl Med. 2001 Jan;42(1):3–8. [PubMed: 11197976]
228.
Buscombe JR, Cwikla JB, Thakrar DS. et al. Uptake of Tc-99m MIBI related to tumour size and type. Anticancer Res. 1997;17(3B):1693–4. [PubMed: 9179220]
229.
Clifford EJ, Lugo-Zamudio C. Scintimammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 1996 Nov;172(5):483–6. [PubMed: 8942549]
230.
Cwikla JB, Buscombe JR, Kelleher SM. et al. Comparison of accuracy of scintimammography and X-ray mammography in the diagnosis of primary breast cancer in patients selected for surgical biopsy. Clin Radiol. 1998 Apr;53(4):274–80. [PubMed: 9585043]
231.
Danielsson R, Sanchez-Crespo A, Pegerfalk A. et al. 99mTc-sestamibi uptake and histological malignancy grade in invasive breast carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 May;30(5):662–6. [PubMed: 12616323]
232.
Dunnwald LK, Hartnett SD, Mankoff DA. Utility and reproducibility of semiquantitative analysis of sestamibi breast images. J Nucl Med Technol. 1997 Jun;25(2):106–9. [PubMed: 9239613]
233.
Farias-Jimenez J, Rivera A, Carlo VM. Technetium-99m sestamibi in the diagnosis of breast cancer. The Mayaguez Medical Center experience. Bol Asoc Med P R. 2001;93(112):9–11. [PubMed: 12755069]
234.
Fleming RM. Mitochondrial uptake of sestamibi distinguishes between normal, inflammatory breast changes, pre‐cancers, and infiltrating breast cancer. Integr Cancer Ther. 2002 Sep;1(3):229–37. [PubMed: 14667281]
235.
Fleming RM, Dooley WC. Breast enhanced scintigraphy testing distinguishes between normal, inflammatory breast changes, and breast cancer: a prospective analysis and comparison with mammography. Integr Cancer Ther. 2002 Sep;1(3):238–45. [PubMed: 14667282]
236.
Horne T, Pappo I, Cohenpour M. et al. 99Tcm-MIBI scintimammography for the detection of breast malignancies: the contribution of the count ratio to specificity. Nucl Med Commun. 1999 Jun;20( 6):511–6. [PubMed: 10451862]
237.
Horne T, Pappo I, Cohen-Pour M. et al. 99Tc(m)-tetrofosmin scintimammography for detecting breast cancer: a comparative study with 99Tc(m)-MIBI. Nucl Med Commun. 2001 Jul;22(7):807–11. [PubMed: 11453054]
238.
Howarth D, Sillar R, Lan L. et al. Scintimammography: an adjunctive test for the detection of breast cancer. Med J Aust. 1999 Jun 21;170(12):588–91. [PubMed: 10416428]
239.
Howarth D, Sillar R, Clark D. et al. Technetium-99m sestamibi scintimammography: the influence of histopathological characteristics, lesion size and the presence of carcinoma in situ in the detection of breast carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999 Nov;26(11):1475–81. [PubMed: 10552090]
240.
Iraniha S, Khalkhali II, Cutrone JA. et al. Breast Cancer Imaging: Can Tc-99m Sestamibi Scintimammography Fit In? Medscape Womens Health. 1997 Apr;2(4):2. [PubMed: 9746689]
241.
Khalkhali I, Cutrone JA, Mena IG. et al. Scintimammography: the complementary role of Tc-99m sestamibi prone breast imaging for the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Radiology. 1995 Aug;196(2):421–6. [PubMed: 7617855]
242.
Khalkhali I, Cutrone J, Mena I. et al. Technetium-99m-sestamibi scintimammography of breast lesions: clinical and pathological follow-up. J Nucl Med. 1995 Oct;36(10):1784–9. [PubMed: 7562043]
243.
Khalkhali I, Mena I, Jouanne E. et al. Prone scintimammography in patients with suspicion of carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg. 1994 May;178(5):491–7. [PubMed: 8167887]
244.
Khalkhali I, Iraniha S, Cutrone JA. et al. Scintimammography with Tc-99m sestamibi. Acta Med Austriaca. 1997;24(2):46–9. [PubMed: 9227786]
245.
Kim SJ. Incremental diagnostic value of quantitative analysis of double phase Tc-99m MIBI scintimammography for the detection of primary breast cancer additive to visual analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004 Jan;83(2):129–38. [PubMed: 14997043]
246.
Lumachi F, Marzola MC, Zucchetta P. et al. Breast cancer detection with 99m-Tc-sestamibi scintigraphy, mammography, and fine-needle aspiration cytology: comparative study in 64 surgically treated patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999 Sep;6(6):568–71. [PubMed: 10493625]
247.
Lumachi F, Ferretti G, Povolato M. et al. Accuracy of technetium-99m sestamibi scintimammography and X-ray mammography in premenopausal women with suspected breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001 Dec;28(12):1776–80. [PubMed: 11734915]
248.
Lumachi F, Ferretti G, Povolato M. et al. Sestamibi scintimammography in pT1 breast cancer: alternative or complementary to X-ray mammography. Anticancer Res. 2001;21(3C):2201–5. [PubMed: 11501847]
249.
Lumachi F, Zucchetta P, Marzola MC. et al. Positive predictive value of 99mTc sestamibi scintimammography in patients with non-palpable, mammographically detected, suspicious, breast lesions. Nucl Med Commun. 2002 Nov 1;23(11):1073–8. [PubMed: 12411835]
250.
Lumachi F, Ferretti G, Povolato M. et al. Usefulness of 99m-Tc-sestamibi scintimammography in suspected breast cancer and in axillary lymph node metastases detection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001 Apr;27(3):256–9. [PubMed: 11373101]
251.
Massardo T, Alonso O, Kabasakal L. et al. Diagnostic value of 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate and 99mTc-pentavalent DMSA compared with 99mTc-sestamibi for palpable breast lesions. J Nucl Med. 2002 Jul;43(7):882–8. [PubMed: 12097457]
252.
Maurer AH, Caroline DF, Jadali FJ. et al. Limitations of craniocaudal thallium-201 and technetium-99m-sestamibi mammoscintigraphy. J Nucl Med. 1995 Sep;36(9):1696–700. [PubMed: 7658233]
253.
Myslivecek M, Koranda P, Kaminek M. et al. Technetium-99m-MIBI scintimammography by planar and SPECT imaging in the diagnosis of breast carcinoma and axillary lymph node involvement. Nucl Med Rev. 2004;7(2):151–5. [PubMed: 15968602]
254.
Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Ono Y. et al. Comparative evaluation of 99mTc-MIBI and 99mTc-HMDP scintimammography for the diagnosis of breast cancer and its axillary metastases. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001 Apr;28(4):522–8. [PubMed: 11357504]
255.
Palmedo H, Biersack HJ, Lastoria S. et al. Scintimammography with technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile: results of a prospective European multicentre trial. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998 Apr;25(4):375–85. [PubMed: 9553167]
256.
Papantoniou V, Christodoulidou J, Papadaki E. et al. Uptake and washout of 99mTcV-dimercaptosuccinic acid and 99mTc-sestamibi in the assessment of histological type and grade in breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2002 May;23(5):461–7. [PubMed: 11973487]
257.
Polan RL, Klein BD, Richman RH. Scintimammography in patients with minimal mammographic or clinical findings. Radiographics. 2001;21(3):641–53. discussion 653–5. [PubMed: 11353112]
258.
Prats E, Aisa F, Abos MD. et al. Mammography and 99mTc-MIBI scintimammography in suspected breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1999 Feb;40(2):296–301. [PubMed: 10025838]
259.
Ren C, Jin S, Zhou Q. et al. Clinical significance of 99mTc-MIBI breast imaging in the diagnosis of early breast cancer. Asian J Surg. 2002 Apr;25(2):126–9. [PubMed: 12376231]
260.
Sampalis FS, Denis R, Picard D. et al. International prospective evaluation of scintimammography with technetium-99m sestamibi: interim results. Am J Surg. 2001 Oct;182(4):399–403. [PubMed: 11720679]
261.
Scopinaro F, Pani R, De Vincentis G. et al. High-resolution scintimammography improves the accuracy of technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography: use of a new dedicated gamma camera. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999 Oct;26(10):1279–88. [PubMed: 10541826]
262.
Sillar R, Howarth D, Clark D. The initial Australian experience of technetium-99M sestamibi scintimammography: a complementary test in the management of breast cancer. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997 Jul;67(7):433–7. [PubMed: 9236609]
263.
Taillefer R. Technetium-99m-sestamibi prone scintimammography to detect primary breast cancer and axillary lymph node involvement. J Nucl Med. 1995 Oct;36(10):1758–65. [PubMed: 7562039]
264.
Tiling R, Tatsch K, Sommer H. et al. Technetium-99m-sestamibi scintimammography for the detection of breast carcinoma: comparison between planar and SPECT imaging. J Nucl Med. 1998 May;39(5):849–56. [PubMed: 9591588]
265.
Tiling R, Kessler M, Untch M. et al. Initial evaluation of breast cancer using Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53(2):206–12. [PubMed: 15664284]
266.
Tolmos J, Cutrone JA, Wang B. et al. Scintimammographic analysis of nonpalpable breast lesions previously identified by conventional mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Jun 3;90(11):846–9. [PubMed: 9625173]
267.
Vargas HI, Agbunag RV, Kalinowski A. et al. The clinical utility of Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography in detecting multicentric breast cancer. Am Surg. 2001 Dec;67(12):1204–8. [PubMed: 11768831]
268.
Barbacioru C, Arunachalam A, Cowden D, et al. Pharmacokinetic mapping of breast tumors: a new statistical analysis technique for dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. AMIA Symposium Proceedings 2003;783. [PMC free article: PMC1480219] [PubMed: 14728288]
269.
Baum E, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R. et al. Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol. 2002 May 1;12(5):1087–92. [PubMed: 11976850]
270.
Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R. et al. Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol. 2002 May;12(5):1087–92. [PubMed: 11976850]
271.
Meriggi F. Surgical therapy of colorectal metastases - state of the art. Rom J Gastroenterol. 2004;13(3):233–5. [PubMed: 15470537]
272.
Bone B, Szabo BK, Perbeck LG. et al. Can contrast-enhanced MR imaging predict survival in breast cancer. Acta Radiol. 2003 Jul;44(4):373–8. [PubMed: 12846686]
273.
Carriero A, Di Credico A, Mansour M. et al. Maximum intensity projection analysis in magnetic resonance of the breast. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2002 Sep;21(3 Suppl):77–81. [PubMed: 12585659]
274.
Choi BG, Kim HH, Kim EN. et al. New subtraction algorithms for evaluation of lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Eur Radiol. 2002 Dec;12(12):3018–22. [PubMed: 12439585]
275.
Fenlon HM, Phelan NC, O'Sullivan P. et al. Benign versus malignant breast disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR imaging and Tc-99m tetrofosmin scintimammography. Radiology. 1997 Oct;205(1):214–20. [PubMed: 9314988]
276.
Furman B, Gardner MS, Romilly P. et al. Effect of 0.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2003 Oct;186(4):344–7. [PubMed: 14553847]
277.
Gibbs P. Differentiation of benign and malignant sub-1 cm breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. Breast. 2004 Apr;13(2):115–21. [PubMed: 15019691]
278.
German Agency for Health Technology Assessment. Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnostics of breast carcinoma - systematic review. Koln: German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DAHTA) (DIMDI); 1998. Also available: http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clhta/articles/HTA-999821/frame.html.
279.
Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL. et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Aug;16(2):172–8. [PubMed: 12203765]
280.
Jacobs MA, Barker PB, Bottomley PA. et al. Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of human breast cancer: a preliminary study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Jan;19(1):68–75. [PubMed: 14696222]
281.
Jacobs MA. Benign and malignant breast lesions: diagnosis with multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. 2003 Oct;229(1):225–32. [PubMed: 14519877]
282.
Kaiser W. MRI of the female breast. First clinical results. Arch Int Physiol Biochim. 1985 Dec;93(5):67–76. [PubMed: 2424392]
283.
Khatri VP, Stuppino JJ, Espinosa MH. et al. Improved accuracy in differentiating malignant from benign mammographic abnormalities: a simple, improved magnetic resonance imaging method. Cancer. 2001 Aug 1;92(3):471–8. [PubMed: 11505390]
284.
Kim SJ, Morris EA, Liberman L. et al. Observer variability and applicability of BI-RADS terminology for breast MR imaging: invasive carcinomas as focal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Sep;177(3):551–7. [PubMed: 11517046]
285.
Kramer S, Schulz-Wendtland R, Hagedorn K. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and its role in the diagnosis of multicentric breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 1998;18(3C):2163–4. [PubMed: 9703777]
286.
Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ. et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology. 2003 Mar;226(3):773–8. [PubMed: 12601182]
287.
Lucht RE, Knopp MV, Brix G. Classification of signal-time curves from dynamic MR mammography by neural networks. Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Jan;19(1):51–7. [PubMed: 11295347]
288.
Nagashima T, Suzuki M, Yagata H. et al. Dynamic-enhanced MRI predicts metastatic potential of invasive ductal breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2002;9(3):226–30. [PubMed: 12185334]
289.
Nakahara H, Namba K, Wakamatsu H. et al. Extension of breast cancer: comparison of CT and MRI. Radiat Med. 2002;20(1):17–23. [PubMed: 12002599]
290.
Obenauer S, Schorn C, Stelter B. et al. Contrast-enhanced high in-plane resolution dynamic MRI of the breast. Are there advantages in comparison to standard dynamic MRI? Clin Imaging. 2002;26(3):161–5. [PubMed: 11983466]
291.
Reinikainen H, Paakko E, Suramo I. et al. Dynamics of contrast enhancement in MR imaging and power Doppler ultrasonography of solid breast lesions. Acta Radiol. 2002 Sep;43(5):492–500. [PubMed: 12423460]
292.
Rigauts H, Casselman J, Steyaert L. et al. Contribution of MRI and color Doppler sonography in breast cancer diagnosis. J Belge Radiol. 1993 Aug;76(4):226–31. [PubMed: 8294376]
293.
Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E. et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004 Jun;30(5):501–7. [PubMed: 15135477]
294.
Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E. et al. Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2004 Jul;14(7):1209–16. [PubMed: 15024602]
295.
Shahar KH, Solaiyappan M, Bluemke DA. Quantitative differentiation of breast lesions based on three-dimensional morphology from magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2002;26(6):1047–53. [PubMed: 12488759]
296.
Slanetz PJ, Edmister WB, Yeh ED. et al. Occult contralateral breast carcinoma incidentally detected by breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2002;8(3):145–8. [PubMed: 12047470]
297.
Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen Wiberg M. et al. Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol. 2003 Nov;13(11):2425–35. [PubMed: 12898176]
298.
Teifke A, Hlawatsch A, Beier T. et al. Undetected malignancies of the breast: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T. Radiology. 2002 Sep;224(3):881–8. [PubMed: 12202728]
299.
Trecate G, Tess JD, Vergnaghi D. et al. Breast microcalcifications studied with 3D contrast-enhanced high-field magnetic resonance imaging: more accuracy in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Tumori. 2002;88(3):224–33. [PubMed: 12195761]
300.
Tuncbilek N, Unlu E, Karakas HM. et al. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis with contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance mammography. Breast J. 2003;9(5):403–8. [PubMed: 12968962]
301.
Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Dijckmans L. et al. MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: comparison with mammography and ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2004 May;14(5):809–16. [PubMed: 14615904]
302.
Wedegartner U, Bick U, Wortler K. et al. Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR-mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(9):1645–50. [PubMed: 11511885]
303.
Louie L, Velez N, Earnest D. et al. Management of nonpalpable ultrasound-indeterminate breast lesions. Surgery. 2003 Oct;134(4):667–73. discussion 673–4. [PubMed: 14605628]
304.
Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Sylvan M. et al. Comparison of lesion size estimated by dynamic MR imaging, mammography and histopathology in breast neoplasms. Eur Radiol. 2003 Jun;13(6):1207–12. [PubMed: 12764634]
305.
Yeh ED, Slanetz PJ, Edmister WB. et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: spectrum of enhancement and morphology on magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2003;9(1):13–8. [PubMed: 12558665]
306.
Zuiani C, Francescutti GE, Londero V. et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: is there a role for MRI. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2002 Sep;21(3 Suppl):89–95. [PubMed: 12585661]
307.
Allen SA, Cunliffe WJ, Gray J. et al. Pre-operative estimation of primary breast cancer size: a comparison of clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasound. Breast. 2001;10(4):299–305. [PubMed: 14965598]
308.
Arger PH, Sehgal CM, Conant EF. et al. Interreader variability and predictive value of US descriptions of solid breast masses: pilot study. Acad Radiol. 2001 Apr;8(4):335–42. [PubMed: 11293782]
309.
Baker JA, Soo MS. Breast US: assessment of technical quality and image interpretation. Radiology. 2002 Apr;223(1):229–38. [PubMed: 11930071]
310.
Beeckman P, De Clerck S, Jong B. et al. The ultrasound aspect of the skin and subcutaneous fat layer in various benign and malignant breast conditions. J Belge Radiol. 1991;74(4):283–8. [PubMed: 1797793]
311.
Bhatti PT, LeCarpentier GL, Roubidoux MA. et al. Discrimination of sonographically detected breast masses using frequency shift color Doppler imaging in combination with age and gray scale criteria. J Ultrasound Med. 2001 Apr;20(4):343–50. [PubMed: 11316312]
312.
Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL. et al. Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol. 2003 Dec;48(3):285–92. [PubMed: 14652148]
313.
Butler RS, Venta LA, Wiley EL. et al. Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Feb;172(2):325–30. [PubMed: 9930776]
314.
Britton PD, Coulden RA. The use of duplex Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 1990 Dec;42(6):399–401. [PubMed: 2175686]
315.
Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S. et al. Colour Doppler sonography of breast masses: a multiparameter analysis. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:917–23. [PubMed: 9413965]
316.
Carson PL, Moskalik AP, Govil A. et al. The 3D and 2D color flow display of breast masses. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1997;23(6):837–49. [PubMed: 9300987]
317.
Kawashima M, Tamaki Y, Nonaka T. et al. MR imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jul;179(1):179–83. [PubMed: 12076930]
318.
Chandawarkar RY, Shinde SR. Preoperative diagnosis of carcinoma of the breast: is a "cost-cutter" algorithm tenable? J Surg Oncol. 1997 Feb;64(2):153–8. [PubMed: 9047254]
319.
Chao TC, Lo YF, Chen SC. et al. Color Doppler ultrasound in benign and malignant breast tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999 Sep;57(2):193–9. [PubMed: 10598046]
320.
Chen DR, Jeng LB, Kao A. et al. Comparing thallium-201 spect mammoscintigraphy and ultrasonography to detect breast cancer in mammographical dense breasts. Neoplasma. 2003;50(3):222–6. [PubMed: 12937857]
321.
Chen DR, Chang RF, Kuo WJ. et al. Diagnosis of breast tumors with sonographic texture analysis using wavelet transform and neural networks. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 Oct;28(10):1301–10. [PubMed: 12467857]
322.
Chen WM, Chang RF, Moon WK. et al. Breast cancer diagnosis using three-dimensional ultrasound and pixel relation analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003 Jul;29(7):1027–35. [PubMed: 12878249]
323.
Choi HY, Kim HY, Baek SY. et al. Significance of resistive index in color Doppler ultrasonogram: differentiation between benign and malignant breast masses. Clin Imaging. 1999;23(5):284–8. [PubMed: 10665344]
324.
Ciatto S, Rosselli del Turco M, Catarzi S. et al. The contribution of ultrasonography to the differential diagnosis of breast cancer. Neoplasma. 1994;41(6):341–5. [PubMed: 7870218]
325.
Cilotti A, Bagnolesi P, Moretti M. et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of high-frequency ultrasound as a first- or second-line diagnostic tool in non-palpable lesions of the breast. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(8):1240–4. [PubMed: 9377509]
326.
Cimitan M, Volpe R, Candiani E. et al. The use of thallium-201 in the preoperative detection of breast cancer: an adjunct to mammography and ultrasonography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1995 Oct;22(10):1110–7. [PubMed: 8542893]
327.
Cosgrove DO, Kedar RP, Bamber JC. et al. Breast diseases: color Doppler US in differential diagnosis. Radiology. 1993 Oct;189(1):99–104. [PubMed: 8372225]
328.
Cosmacini P, Veronesi P, Galimberti V. et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of palpable breast masses: analysis of 134 cases. Tumori. 1990 Oct 31;76(5):495–8. [PubMed: 2256197]
329.
Debniak B, Debniak T, Breborowicz GH. et al. The usefulness of Doppler angiography in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2004;49(3):138–43. [PubMed: 15303315]
330.
Delorme S, Zuna I, Huber S. et al. Colour Doppler sonography in breast tumours: an update. Eur Radiol. 1998;8(2):189–93. [PubMed: 9477264]
331.
Dixon JM, Walsh J, Paterson D. et al. Colour Doppler ultrasonography studies of benign and malignant breast lesions. Br J Surg. 1992 Mar;79(3):259–60. [PubMed: 1555096]
332.
Dock W. Duplex sonography of mammary tumors: a prospective study of 75 patients. J Ultrasound Med. 1993 Feb;12(2):79–82. [PubMed: 8468740]
333.
Drukker K, Giger ML, Mendelson EB. Computerized analysis of shadowing on breast ultrasound for improved lesion detection. Med Phys. 2003 Jul;30(7):1833–42. [PubMed: 12906202]
334.
Edde DJ. Whole-breast compression ultrasonography with the patient in the sitting position. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1994 Aug;45(4):324–6. [PubMed: 8062127]
335.
Staren ED. Surgical office-based ultrasound of the breast. Am Surg. 1995 Jul;61(7):619–26. discussion 627. [PubMed: 7793744]
336.
Eltahir A, Jibril JA, Squair J. et al. The accuracy of ‘one-stop’ diagnosis for 1,110 patients presenting to a symptomatic breast clinic. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1999 Aug;44(4):226–30. [PubMed: 10453144]
337.
Finlay ME, Liston JE, Lunt LG. et al. Assessment of the role of ultrasound in the differentiation of radial scars and stellate carcinomas of the breast. Clin Radiol. 1994 Jan;49(1):52–5. [PubMed: 8299333]
338.
Forsberg F, Goldberg BB, Merritt CR. et al. Diagnosing breast lesions with contrast-enhanced 3-dimensional power Doppler imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Feb;23(2):173–82. [PubMed: 14992354]
339.
Foxcroft LM, Evans EB, Porter AJ. The diagnosis of breast cancer in women younger than 40. Breast. 2004 Aug;13(4):297–306. [PubMed: 15325664]
340.
Fung HM, Jackson FI. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions demonstrated by ultrasound. J R Soc Med. 1990 Nov;83(11):696–8. [PMC free article: PMC1292915] [PubMed: 2250265]
341.
Garra BS, Krasner BH, Horii SC. et al. Improving the distinction between benign and malignant breast lesions: the value of sonographic texture analysis. Ultrason Imaging. 1993 Oct;15(4):267–85. [PubMed: 8171752]
342.
Gefen S, Tretiak OJ, Piccoli CW. et al. ROC analysis of ultrasound tissue characterization classifiers for breast cancer diagnosis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003 Feb;22(2):170–7. [PubMed: 12715993]
343.
Germer U, Tetzlaff A, Geipel A. et al. Strong impact of estrogen environment on Doppler variables used for differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Apr;19(4):380–5. [PubMed: 11952968]
344.
Giuseppetti GM, Baldassarre S, Marconi E. Color Doppler sonography. Eur J Radiol. 1998 May;27(Suppl 2):S254–8. [PubMed: 9652531]
345.
Golshan M, Fung BB, Wolfman J. et al. The effect of ipsilateral whole breast ultrasonography on the surgical management of breast carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2003 Oct;186(4):391–6. [PubMed: 14553857]
346.
Golub RM. Differentiation of breast tumors by ultrasonic tissue characterization. J Ultrasound Med. 1993 Oct;12(10):601–8. [PubMed: 8246339]
347.
Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH. et al. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):850–6. [PubMed: 15486217]
348.
Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J. et al. Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 2001 Oct;182(4):351–4. [PubMed: 11720669]
349.
Hieken TJ, Velasco JM. A prospective analysis of office-based breast ultrasound. Arch Surg. 1998 May;133(5):504–7. discussion 507–8. [PubMed: 9605912]
350.
Hollerweger A, Rettenbacher T, Macheiner P. et al. New signs of breast cancer: high resistance flow and variations in resistive indices evaluation by color Doppler sonography. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1997;23(6):851–6. [PubMed: 9300988]
351.
Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM. et al. Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: Comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Apr;180(4):935–40. [PubMed: 12646432]
352.
Huang CS, Wu CY, Chu JS. et al. Microcalcifications of non-palpable breast lesions detected by ultrasonography: correlation with mammography and histopathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;13(6):431–6. [PubMed: 10423808]
353.
Huber S, Helbich T, Kettenbach J. et al. Effects of a microbubble contrast agent on breast tumors: computer-assisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler US--early experience. Radiology. 1998 Aug;208(2):485–9. [PubMed: 9680580]
354.
Huber S, Delorme S, Knopp MV. et al. Breast tumors: computer-assisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler US. Radiology. 1994 Sep;192(3):797–801. [PubMed: 8058950]
355.
Jackson VP, Kelly-Fry E, Rothschild PA. et al. Automated breast sonography using a 7.5-MHz PVDF transducer: preliminary clinical evaluation. Work in progress. Radiology. 1986;159(3):679–84. [PubMed: 3517952]
356.
Joo S, Yang YS, Moon WK. et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of solid breast nodules: use of an artificial neural network based on multiple sonographic features. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004 Oct;23(10):1292–300. [PubMed: 15493696]
357.
Kaiser JS, Helvie MA, Blacklaw RL. et al. Palpable breast thickening: role of mammography and US in cancer detection. Radiology. 2002 Jun;223(3):839–44. [PubMed: 12034957]
358.
Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001 Dec;221(3):641–9. [PubMed: 11719658]
359.
Kedar RP, Cosgrove DO, Bamber JC. et al. Automated quantification of color Doppler signals: a preliminary study in breast tumors. Radiology. 1995 Oct;197(1):39–43. [PubMed: 7568851]
360.
Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH. High frequency breast ultrasound. Hand-held versus automated units; examination for palpable mass versus screening. J Ultrasound Med. 1988;7(2):77–81. [PubMed: 3279228]
361.
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 Oct;225(1):165–75. [PubMed: 12355001]
362.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology. 1998 Apr;207(1):191–9. [PubMed: 9530316]
363.
Ultrasound detects missed cancers. Biomed Instrum Technol 1997;31(3):217–8.
364.
Kook SH, Kwag HJ. Value of contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography using a microbubble echo-enhancing agent in evaluation of small breast lesions. J Clin Ultrasound. 2003 Jun;31(5):227–38. [PubMed: 12767017]
365.
Kook SH, Park HW, Lee YR. et al. Evaluation of solid breast lesions with power Doppler sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1999 Jun;27(5):231–7. [PubMed: 10355886]
366.
Krestan CR, Riedl C, Memarsadeghi M. et al. 3D-power Doppler ultrasound of breast lesions with a microbubble contrast agent. Acad Radiol. 2002 Aug;9(Suppl 2):S384–5. [PubMed: 12188284]
367.
Kuijpers TJ, Obdeijn AI, Kruyt RH. et al. Solid breast neoplasms: differential diagnosis with pulsed Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1994;20(6):517–20. [PubMed: 7998372]
368.
Lam WW, Chu WC, Tse GM. et al. Sonographic appearance of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Apr;182(4):1069–74. [PubMed: 15039190]
369.
Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C. et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Jun;180(6):1675–9. [PubMed: 12760942]
370.
Lee SK, Lee T, Lee KR. et al. Evaluation of breast tumors with color Doppler imaging: a comparison with image-directed Doppler ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1995;23(6):367–73. [PubMed: 7673453]
371.
Lee WJ, Chu JS, Huang CS. et al. Breast cancer vascularity: color Doppler sonography and histopathology study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996;37(3):291–8. [PubMed: 8825140]
372.
Leung JW, Kornguth PJ, Gotway MB. Utility of targeted sonography in the evaluation of focal breast pain. J Ultrasound Med. 2002 May;21(5):521–6. [PubMed: 12008815]
373.
Lister D, Evans AJ, Burrell HC. et al. The accuracy of breast ultrasound in the evaluation of clinically benign discrete, symptomatic breast lumps. Clin Radiol. 1998 Jul;53(7):490–2. [PubMed: 9714387]
374.
Nunes LW, Englander SA, Charafeddine R. et al. Optimal post-contrast timing of breast MR image acquisition for architectural feature analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Jul;16(1):42–50. [PubMed: 12112502]
375.
Madjar H, Prompeler HJ, Sauerbrei W. et al. Differential diagnosis of breast lesions by color Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Sep;6(3):199–204. [PubMed: 8521070]
376.
Madjar H, Sauerbrei W, Prompeler HJ. et al. Color Doppler and duplex flow analysis for classification of breast lesions. Gynecol Oncol. 1997 Mar;64(3):392–403. [PubMed: 9062140]
377.
Madjar H, Prompeler HJ, Sauerbrei W. et al. Color Doppler flow criteria of breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1994;20(9):849–58. [PubMed: 7886845]
378.
Madjar H, Sauerbrei W, Munch S. et al. Continuous-wave and pulsed Doppler studies of the breast: clinical results and effect of transducer frequency. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1991;17(1):31–9. [PubMed: 2021009]
379.
Madjar H, Prompeler HJ, Del Favero C. et al. A new Doppler signal enhancing agent for flow assessment in breast lesions. Eur J Ultrasound. 2000 Dec;12(2):123–30. [PubMed: 11118919]
380.
Marini C, Traino C, Cilotti A. et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast microcalcifications: mammography versus mammography-sonography combination. Radiol Med (Torino). 2003;105(12):17–26. [PubMed: 12700541]
381.
Martinez AM, Medina CJ, Bustos C. et al. Assessment of breast lesions using Doppler with contrast agents. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24(6):527–30. [PubMed: 14658595]
382.
Medl M, Peters-Engl C, Leodolter S. The use of color-coded Doppler sonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 1994;14(5B):2249–51. [PubMed: 7840531]
383.
Mesaki K, Hisa N, Kubota K. et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors using Doppler spectral parameters including acceleration time index. Oncol Rep (Athens). 2003;10(4):945–50. [PubMed: 12792750]
384.
Milz P, Lienemann A, Kessler M. et al. Evaluation of breast lesions by power Doppler sonography. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(4):547–54. [PubMed: 11354745]
385.
Moss HA, Britton PD, Flower CDR. et al. How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population? Clin Radiol. 1999;54(10):676–82. [PubMed: 10541394]
386.
Obwegeser R, Berghammer P, Kubista E. Ultrasound-imaging of lateral thoracic arteries to detect breast cancer. Lancet. 1999 Jun 5;353(9168):1938. [PubMed: 10371578]
387.
Ohlinger R, Klein GM, Kohler G. Ultrasound of the breast - value of sonographic criteria for the differential diagnosis of solid lesions. Ultraschall Med. 2004 Feb;25(1):48–53. [PubMed: 14961424]
388.
Ozdemir A, Kilic K, Ozdemir H. et al. Contrast-enhanced power doppler sonography in breast lesions: effect on differential diagnosis after mammography and gray scale sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23(2):183–96. [PubMed: 14992355]
389.
Zdemir A, Kilic K, Ozdemir H. et al. Contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography in breast lesions: effect on differential diagnosis after mammography and gray scale sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Feb;23(2):183–95. quiz 196–7. [PubMed: 14992355]
390.
Ozdemir A, Ozdemir H, Maral I. et al. Differential diagnosis of solid breast lesions: contribution of Doppler studies to mammography and gray scale imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2001 Oct;20(10):1091–101. quiz 1102. [PubMed: 11587016]
391.
Ozdemir A, Oznur II, Vural G. et al. Tl-201 scintigraphy, mammography and ultrasonography in the evaluation of palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions: a correlative study. Eur J Radiol. 1997 Feb;24(2):145–54. [PubMed: 9097057]
392.
Pamilo M, Soiva M, Anttinen I. et al. Ultrasonography of breast lesions detected in mammography screening. Acta Radiol. 1991 May;32(3):220–5. [PubMed: 2064866]
393.
Park JM, Yoon GS, Kim SM. et al. Sonographic detection of multifocality in breast carcinoma. J Clin Ultrasound. 2003;31(6):293–8. [PubMed: 12811787]
394.
Peters-Engl C, Medl M, Mirau M. et al. Color-coded and spectral Doppler flow in breast carcinomas--relationship with the tumor microvasculature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998 Jan;47(1):83–9. [PubMed: 9493979]
395.
Peters-Engl C, Medl M, Leodolter S. The use of colour-coded and spectral Doppler ultrasound in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Br J Cancer. 1995 Jan;71(1):137–9. [PMC free article: PMC2033465] [PubMed: 7819029]
396.
Pillsbury SG Jr, Haugen JA, Roux S. Reliability of multimodal evaluation of abnormal screening mammogram results. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jun;174(6):1683–6. discussion 1686–7. [PubMed: 8678127]
397.
Pinero A, Reus M, Illana J. et al. Palpable breast lesions: utility of Doppler sonography for diagnosis of malignancy. Breast. 2003 Aug;12(4):258–63. [PubMed: 14659310]
398.
Pritt B, Ashikaga T, Oppenheimer RG. et al. Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements. Mod Pathol. 2004 Aug;17(8):905–10. [PubMed: 15105809]
399.
Puglisi F, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M. et al. Role of mammography, ultrasound and large core biopsy in the diagnostic evaluation of papillary breast lesions. Oncology. 2003;65(4):311–5. [PubMed: 14707450]
400.
Ramlau C, Sledzikowski J. Combination of thermographic and ultrasound methods for the diagnosis of female breast cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1993;14 Suppl:152–4. [PubMed: 8200367]
401.
Ranieri E, D'Andrea MR, D'Alessio A. et al. Ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer associated with isolated clustered microcalcifications, mammographically identified. Anticancer Res. 1997;17(4A):2831–5. [PubMed: 9252725]
402.
Raza S, Baum JK. Solid breast lesions: evaluation with power Doppler US. Radiology. 1997 Apr;203(1):164–8. [PubMed: 9122386]
403.
Reinikainen H, Rissanen T, Paivansalo M. et al. B-mode, power Doppler and contrast-enhanced power Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast tumors. Acta Radiol. 2001 Jan;42(1):106–13. [PubMed: 11167342]
404.
Richter K. Clinical amplitude/velocity reconstructive imaging (CARI)--a new sonographic method for detecting breast lesions. Br J Radiol. 1995 Apr;68(808):375–84. [PubMed: 7795973]
405.
Richter K. Detection of diffuse breast cancers with a new sonographic method. J Clin Ultrasound. 1996 May;24(4):157–68. [PubMed: 8727413]
406.
Richter K, Heywang-Kobrunner SH. Sonographic differentiation of benign from malignant breast lesions: value of indirect measurement of ultrasound velocity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Oct;165(4):825–31. [PubMed: 7676975]
407.
Richter K, Heywang-Kobrunner SH. Quantitative parameters measured by a new sonographic method for differentiation of benign and malignant breast disease. Invest Radiol. 1995 Jul;30(7):401–11. [PubMed: 7591649]
408.
Richter K, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Winzer KJ. et al. Detection of malignant and benign breast lesions with an automated US system: results in 120 cases. Radiology. 1997 Dec;205(3):823–30. [PubMed: 9393543]
409.
Rosen EL, Soo MS. Tissue harmonic imaging sonography of breast lesions: improved margin analysis, conspicuity, and image quality compared to conventional ultrasound. Clin Imaging. 2001;25(6):379–84. [PubMed: 11733148]
410.
Rubin E, Mennemeyer ST, Desmond RA. et al. Reducing the cost of diagnosis of breast carcinoma: impact of ultrasound and imaging-guided biopsies on a clinical breast practice (Structured abstract). Cancer. 2001;91(2):324–32. [PubMed: 11180078]
411.
Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U. et al. The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001 May;67(2):117–23. [PubMed: 11519860]
412.
Sahin-Akyar G, Sumer H. Color Doppler ultrasound and spectral analysis of tumor vessels in the differential diagnosis of solid breast masses. Invest Radiol. 1996 Feb;31(2):72–9. [PubMed: 8750441]
413.
Saitoh R, Kojima R, Ito K. et al. Real-time high resolution ultrasonography of solid breast masses: use of a 10‐MHz mechanical sector transducer with a water bag. Radiat Med. 1994;12(5):201–8. [PubMed: 7863023]
414.
Schelling M, Gnirs J, Braun M. et al. Optimized differential diagnosis of breast lesions by combined B-mode and color Doppler sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Jul;10(1):48–53. [PubMed: 9263423]
415.
Schroeder RJ, Maeurer J, Vogl TJ. et al. D-galactose-based signal-enhanced color Doppler sonography of breast tumors and tumorlike lesions. Invest Radiol. 1999 Feb;34(2):109–15. [PubMed: 9951790]
416.
Schutze B, Marx C, Fleck M. et al. Diagnostic evaluation of sonographically visualized breast lesions by using a new clinical amplitude/velocity reference imaging technique (CARI sonography). Invest Radiol. 1998 Jun;33(6):341–7. [PubMed: 9647446]
417.
Sehgal CM, Cary TW, Kangas SA. et al. Computer-based margin analysis of breast sonography for differentiating malignant and benign masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Sep;23(9):1201–9. [PubMed: 15328435]
418.
Selinko VL, Middleton LP, Dempsey PJ. Role of sonography in diagnosing and staging invasive lobular carcinoma. J Clin Ultrasound. 2004 Sep;32(7):323–32. [PubMed: 15293298]
419.
Seo BK, Oh YW, Kim HR. et al. Sonographic evaluation of breast nodules: comparison of conventional, real-time compound, and pulse-inversion harmonic images. Korean J Radiol. 2002;3(1):38–44. [PMC free article: PMC2713985] [PubMed: 11919477]
420.
Shetty MK, Shah YP, Sharman RS. Prospective evaluation of the value of combined mammographic and sonographic assessment in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med. 2003 Mar;22(3):263–8. [PubMed: 12636326]
421.
Skaane P. The additional value of US to mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. A prospective study. Acta Radiol. 1999 Sep;40(5):486–90. [PubMed: 10485236]
422.
Skaane P, Sauer T. Ultrasonography of malignant breast neoplasms. Analysis of carcinomas missed as tumor. Acta Radiol. 1999 Jul;40(4):376–82. [PubMed: 10394864]
423.
Skaane P, Skjorten F. Ultrasonographic evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma. Acta Radiol. 1999 Jul;40(4):369–75. [PubMed: 10394863]
424.
Skaane P, Olsen JB, Sager EM. et al. Variability in the interpretation of ultrasonography in patients with palpable noncalcified breast tumors. Acta Radiol. 1999 Mar;40(2):169–75. [PubMed: 10080729]
425.
Snelling JD, Abdullah N, Brown G. et al. Measurement of tumour size in case selection for breast cancer therapy by clinical assessment and ultrasound. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004 Feb;30(1):5–9. [PubMed: 14736515]
426.
Spreafico C, Lanocita R, Frigerio LF. et al. The Italian experience with SH U 508 A (Levovist) in breast disease. Radiol Med (Torino). 1994 May;87(5 Suppl 1):59–64. [PubMed: 8209019]
427.
Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL. et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995 Jul;196(1):123–34. [PubMed: 7784555]
428.
Steinberg BD, Carlson DL, Birnbaum JA. Sonographic discrimination between benign and malignant breast lesions with use of disparity processing. Acad Radiol. 2001 Aug;8(8):705–12. [PubMed: 11508749]
429.
Szopinski KT, Pajk AM, Wysocki M. et al. Tissue harmonic imaging: utility in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2003 May;22(5):479–87. [PubMed: 12751859]
430.
Tavassoli K, Cavalla P, Porcelli A. et al. Ultrasound diagnostic criteria in breast disease. Panminerva Med. 1997 Sep;39(3):178–82. [PubMed: 9360418]
431.
Taylor KJ, Merritt C, Piccoli C. et al. Ultrasound as a complement to mammography and breast examination to characterize breast masses. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 Jan;28(1):19–26. [PubMed: 11879948]
432.
Tohnosu N, Okuyama K, Koide Y. et al. A comparison between ultrasonography and mammography, computed tomography and digital subtraction angiography for the detection of breast cancers. Surg Today. 1993;23(8):704–10. [PubMed: 8400674]
433.
Vetto JT, Pommier RF, Schmidt WA. et al. Diagnosis of palpable breast lesions in younger women by the modified triple test is accurate and cost-effective (Structured abstract). Arch Surg. 1996;131(9):967–72. [PubMed: 8790167]
434.
Wang HC, Chen DR, Kao CH. et al. Detecting breast cancer in mammographically dense breasts: comparing technetium-99m tetrofosmin mammoscintigraphy and ultrasonography. Cancer Invest. 2002;20(78):932–8. [PubMed: 12449724]
435.
Whitehouse PA, Baber Y, Brown G. et al. The use of ultrasound by breast surgeons in outpatients: an accurate extension of clinical diagnosis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001 Nov;27(7):611–6. [PubMed: 11669586]
436.
Whitehouse PA, Barber Y, Brown G. et al. Office ultrasound by breast surgeons: a rapid, accurate adjuct to clinical diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;69(3):237.
437.
Wilkens TH, Burke BJ, Cancelada DA. et al. Evaluation of palpable breast masses with color Doppler sonography and gray scale imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 1998 Feb;17(2):109–15. [PubMed: 9527570]
438.
Wright IA, Pugh ND, Lyons K. et al. Power Doppler in breast tumours: a comparison with conventional colour Doppler imaging. Eur J Ultrasound. 1998 Aug;7(3):175–81. [PubMed: 9700212]
439.
Yang WT, Metreweli C. Assessment of factors affecting palpability of breast masses using ultrasonography in Chinese women. J Ultrasound Med. 1996 Dec;15(12):807–12. [PubMed: 8947854]
440.
Yang WT, Tse GM. Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Jan;182(1):101–10. [PubMed: 14684521]
441.
Yang WT, Suen M, Ahuja A. et al. In vivo demonstration of microcalcification in breast cancer using high resolution ultrasound. Br J Radiol. 1997 Jul;70(835):685–90. [PubMed: 9245879]
442.
Yang WT, Metreweli C, Lam PK. et al. Benign and malignant breast masses and axillary nodes: evaluation with echo-enhanced color power Doppler US. Radiology. 2001 Sep;220(3):795–802. [PubMed: 11526284]
443.
Yang WT, Mok CO, King W. et al. Role of high frequency ultrasonography in the evaluation of palpable breast masses in Chinese women: alternative to mammography. J Ultrasound Med. 1996 Sep;15(9):637–44. [PubMed: 8866446]
444.
Youssefzadeh S, Eibenberger K, Helbich T. et al. Use of resistance index for the diagnosis of breast tumours. Clin Radiol. 1996 Jun;51(6):418–20. [PubMed: 8654007]
445.
Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J. et al. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology. 1999 Nov;213(2):413–22. [PubMed: 10551221]
446.
Bagni B, Franceschetto A, Casolo A. et al. Scintimammography with 99mTc-MIBI and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 Oct;30(10):1383–8. [PubMed: 12910383]
447.
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):830–49. [PubMed: 15486214]
448.
Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R. et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995 Dec;197(3):743–7. [PubMed: 7480749]
449.
Hardy JR, Powles TJ, Judson I. et al. How many tests are required in the diagnosis of palpable breast abnormalities. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1990 May;2(3):148–52. [PubMed: 2261402]
450.
Hata T, Takahashi H, Watanabe K. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a comparative study with mammography and ultrasonography. J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Feb;198(2):190–7. [PubMed: 14759774]
451.
Hlawatsch A, Teifke A, Schmidt M. et al. Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: sonography versus MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Dec;179(6):1493–501. [PubMed: 12438043]
452.
Leinsinger GL, Friedl L, Tiling R. et al. Comparison of dynamic MR imaging of the breast and sestamibi scintimammography for evaluation of indeterminate mammographic lesions. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(10):2050–7. [PubMed: 11702141]
453.
Liang W, Lawrence WF, Burnett CB. et al. Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003 May;79(2):199–206. [PubMed: 12825854]
454.
Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A. et al. Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res. 2001;3(1):55–60. [PMC free article: PMC13900] [PubMed: 11250746]
455.
Muller-Schimpfle M, Stoll P, Stern W. et al. Do mammography, sonography, and MR mammography have a diagnostic benefit compared with mammography and sonography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 May;168(5):1323–9. [PubMed: 9129436]
456.
Rieber A, Schirrmeister H, Gabelmann A. et al. Pre-operative staging of invasive breast cancer with MR mammography and/or PET: boon or bunk. Br J Radiol. 2002 Oct;75(898):789–98. [PubMed: 12381687]
457.
Sommer H, Tiling R, Pechmann M. et al. Evaluation of mammographic breast lesions with Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography and contrast enhanced MRI. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1997;119(1):6–11. [PubMed: 9050197]
458.
Tiling R, Khalkhali I, Sommer H. et al. Limited value of scintimammography and contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of microcalcification detected by mammography. Nucl Med Commun. 1998 Jan;19(1):55–62. [PubMed: 9515547]
459.
Wang HC, Sun SS, Kao A. et al. Comparison of technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer in patients with mammographically dense breast. Cancer Invest. 2002;20(3):318–23. [PubMed: 12025226]
460.
Yang WT, Lam WW, Cheung H. et al. Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 1997 Dec;16(12):791–7. [PubMed: 9401992]
461.
Bone B, Wiberg MK, Szabo BK. et al. Comparison of 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography and dynamic MR imaging as adjuncts to mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Acta Radiol. 2003 Jan;44(1):28–34. [PubMed: 12630995]
462.
Maunda KY, Chande H, Mselle TF. et al. 99mTc sestamibi scintimammography in the diagnosis of palpable breast masses. Nucl Med Commun. 2003 Feb;24(2):141–4. [PubMed: 12548038]
463.
Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Kieper DA. et al. High-resolution scintimammography: a pilot study. J Nucl Med. 2002 Jul;43(7):909–15. [PubMed: 12097461]
464.
Danielsson R, Bone B, Agren B. et al. Comparison of planar and SPECT scintimammography with 99mTc-sestamibi in the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Acta Radiol. 1999 Mar;40(2):176–80. [PubMed: 10080730]
465.
De Vincentis G, Gianni W, Pani R. et al. Role of 99 mTc-Sestamibi scintimammography by SPEM camera in the management of breast cancer in the elderly. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;48(2):159–63. [PubMed: 9596487]
466.
Uriarte I, Carril JM, Quirce R. et al. Optimization of X-ray mammography and technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography in the diagnosis of non-palpable breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998 May;25(5):491–6. [PubMed: 9575244]
467.
Alonso JC, Soriano A, Zarca MA. et al. Breast cancer detection with sestamibi-Tc-99m and Tl-201 radionuclides in patients with non conclusive mammography. Anticancer Res. 1997;17(3B):1661–5. [PubMed: 9179214]
468.
Scopinaro F, Ierardi M, Porfiri LM. et al. 99mTc-MIBI prone scintimammography in patients with high and intermediate risk mammography. Anticancer Res. 1997;17(3B):1635–8. [PubMed: 9179209]
469.
Tiling R, Khalkhali I, Sommer H. et al. Role of technetium-99m sestamibi scintimammography and contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of indeterminate mammograms. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997 Oct;24(10):1221–9. [PubMed: 9323262]
470.
Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Perbeck L. et al. Value of MR imaging in clinical evaluation of breast lesions. Acta Radiol. 2002 May;43(3):275–81. [PubMed: 12100324]
Copyright Notice
Bookshelf ID: NBK42966
Contents

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.6M)

Other titles in these collections

Recent Activity

ClearTurn OffTurn On

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...