Clinical Radiology
Volume 61, Issue 9 , Pages 784-788 , September 2006

Radiological findings of screen-detected cancers in a multi-centre randomized, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40 to 48 years

  • A.J. Evans

      Affiliations

    • Breast Institute, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: A. Evans, Breast Institute, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK. Tel.: +44 115 9691689; fax: +44 115 627 707.
    • ,
  • E. Kutt

      Affiliations

    • Avon Breast Cancer Screening Unit, Central Health Clinic, Tower Hill, Bristol, Avon, UK
    • ,
  • C. Record

      Affiliations

    • Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Breast Screening Service, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Mandeville Road, Aylesbury, UK
    • ,
  • M. Waller

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
    • ,
  • S. Moss

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK

Received 19 December 2005 ,Revised 31 March 2006 ,Accepted 28 April 2006.

References 

  1. Moss S, Thomas I, Evans A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:949–954
  2. Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer. 1976;37:2468–2492
  3. De Nunzio MC, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, et al. Correlations between the mammographic features of prevalent round screen detected invasive breast cancer and pathological prognostic factors. Breast. 1997;6:146–149
  4. Duncan KA, Needham G, Gilbert FJ, et al. Incident round cancers: what lessons can we learn?. Clin Radiol. 1998;53:29–32
  5. Daly CA, Apthorp L, Field S. Second round cancers: how many were visible on the first round of the UK National Breast Screening Programme, three years earlier?. Clin Radiol. 1998;53:25–28
  6. Warren RML, Young JR, McLean L, et al. Radiology review of the UKCCCR breast screening frequency trial: potential improvements in sensitivity and lead time of radiological signs. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:128–132
  7. Sibbering DM, Burrell HC, Evans AJ, et al. Mammographic sensitivity in women under 50 presenting symptomatically with breast cancer. Breast. 1995;4:127–129
  8. Erbas B, Amos A, Fletcher A, et al. Incidence of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ in a screening programme by age: should older women continue screening?. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:1569–1573
  9. Ugnat AM, Xie L, Morriss J, et al. Survival of women with breast cancer in Ottawa, Canada: variation with age, stage, histology, grade and treatment. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:1138–1143
  10. Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, et al. Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic features and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:40–44
  11. Ferranti C, Coopmans de Yoldi G, Biganzoli E, et al. Relationship between age mammographic features and pathological tumour characterisics in non-palpable breast cancer. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:698–705
  12. Evans AJ, Wilson ARM, Burrell HC, et al. Mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present on previous mammography. Clin Radiol. 1999;54:644–646
  13. Cornford EJ, Evans AJ, James JJ, et al. The pathological and radiological features of screen detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions. Clin Radiol. 2005;60:1182–1187

PII: S0009-9260(06)00162-0

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.04.013

Clinical Radiology
Volume 61, Issue 9 , Pages 784-788 , September 2006

Article Tools