Clinical Radiology
Volume 62, Issue 3 , Pages 262-267 , March 2007

NHSBSP type 1 interval cancers: a scientifically valid grouping?

Received 15 May 2006 ,Revised 10 September 2006 ,Accepted 19 October 2006.

References 

  1. Anon. Quality assurance guidelines for breast cancer screening radiology. NHSBSP Publication No. 59; 2005.
  2. Ellis I, Galea M, Broughton N, et al. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1992;20:479–489
  3. Elston C, Ellis I. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403–410
  4. American College of Radiology . Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd ed.. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998;
  5. Berg W, Campassi C, Langenberg P, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system; inter- and intra-observer variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769–1777
  6. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, et al. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2005;237:437–443
  7. Vitak B, Olsen K, Manson J, et al. Tumour characteristics and survival in patients with invasive breast cancer classified according to mammographic findings at the latest screening: a comparison of true interval and missed interval cancers. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:460–469
  8. Porter G, Evans A, Burrell H, et al. Interval breast cancers: prognostic features and survival by subtype and time since screening. J Med Screen. 2006;13:115–122
  9. Cornford E, Wilson A, Athanassiou E, et al. Mammographic features of invasive lobular and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: a comparative analysis. Br J Radiol. 1995;68:450–453
  10. Evans A, Pinder S, Wilson A, et al. The detection of DCIS at mammographic screening enables the diagnosis of small, grade 3 invasive tumours. Br J Cancer. 1997;75:542–544
  11. Burrell H, Sibbering D, Wilson A, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology. 1996;199:615–620
  12. Hackshaw A, Wald N, Michell M, et al. An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than one-view in breast cancer screening. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:454–458
  13. Bane A, Tjan S, Parkes R, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: to grade or not to grade. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:621–628
  14. Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, et al. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme. J Med Screen. 1998;5:207–212

PII: S0009-9260(06)00360-6

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.10.002

Clinical Radiology
Volume 62, Issue 3 , Pages 262-267 , March 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution