SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42: 84551.
  • 2
    Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM et al. Biologic characteristics of internal and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 7439.
  • 3
    Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 215163.
  • 4
    Silverstein MJ, Recht A, Lagios MD et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state-of-the-art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 209: 50420.
  • 5
    Ohuchi N, Ishida T, Kawai M, Narikawa Y, Yamamoto S, Sobue T. Randomized controlled trial on effectiveness of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40–49 (J-START): research design. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2011; 41: 2757.
  • 6
    Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2009; 9: 33544.
  • 7
    Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 1827.
  • 8
    Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 17782.
  • 9
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US-diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998; 207: 1919.
  • 10
    Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 22736.
  • 11
    Roubidoux MA, Bailey JE, Wray LA, Helvie LA. Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors. Radiology 2004; 230: 428.
  • 12
    Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 2006; 111: 4408.
  • 13
    Simpson WL Jr, Hermann G, Rausch DR et al. Ultrasound detection of nonpalpable mammographically occult malignancy. Can Assoc Radiol J 2008; 59: 706.
  • 14
    Gordon P, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995; 76: 62630.
  • 15
    Andreopoulou E, Hortobagyi GN. Prognostic factors in metastatic breast cancer: successes and challenges toward individualized therapy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 36602.
  • 16
    Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406: 74752.
  • 17
    Wang Y, Ikeda DM, Narasimhan B et al. Estrogen receptor–negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression. Radiology 2008; 246: 36775.
  • 18
    Taneja P, Maglic D, Kai F et al. Classical and novel prognostic markers for breast cancer and their clinical significance. Oncology 2010; 4: 1534.
  • 19
    Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13: 232934.
  • 20
    Cheang MCU, Chia SK, Voduc D et al. Ki 67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 73650.
  • 21
    Au-Yong ITH, Evans AJ, Taneja S et al. Sonographic correlations with the new molecular classification of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 23428.
  • 22
    Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 2008; 10: R65.
  • 23
    Lowery AJ, Miller N, Devaney A et al. MicroRNA signatures predict oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER2/new receptor status in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2009; 11: R27.
  • 24
    Van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 19992009.
  • 25
    Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Can Inst 2006; 98: 26272.
  • 26
    Ivshina AV, George J, Senko O et al. Genetic reclassification of histologic grade delineates new clinical subtypes of breast cancer. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 10292301.
  • 27
    Teschendorff AE, Miremadi A, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Caldas C. An immune response gene expression module identifies a good prognosis subtype in estrogen receptor negative breast cancer. Genome Biol 2007; 8: R157.
  • 28
    Irvin WJ Jr, Carey LA. What is triple-negative breast cancer? Eur J Cancer 2008; 44: 2799805.
  • 29
    Podoa F, Buydens LMC, Deganic H et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: present challenges and new perspectives. Mol Oncol 2010; 4: 20929.
  • 30
    Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221: 64164.
  • 31
    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; 225: 16575.
  • 32
    Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000; 21: 32536.
  • 33
    American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS): Mammography, 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.
  • 34
    American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS): Ultrasound, 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.
  • 35
    Singletary SE, Connolly JL. Breast cancer staging: working with the sixth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 3747.
  • 36
    Elston CW, Ellis IO. 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: 40310.
  • 37
    Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 2006; 295: 2492502.
  • 38
    Nyante SJ, Gammon MD, Kaufman JS et al. Common genetic variation in adiponectin, leptin, and leptin receptor and association with breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1517-z. [Epub ahead of print].
  • 39
    Buchberger W, Deloekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breasts: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 9217.
  • 40
    Chan SW, Cheung PS, Chan S et al. Benefit of ultrasonography in the detection of clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer. World J Surg 2008; 32: 25938.
  • 41
    Izumori A, Takebe K, Sato A. Ultrasound findings and histological features of ductal carcinoma in situ detected by ultrasound examination alone. Breast Cancer 2010; 17: 13641.
  • 42
    Dawood S, Hu R, Homes MD et al. Defining breast cancer prognosis based on molecular phenotypes: results from a large cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 126: 18592.