SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE et al. Relation of tumour size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989; 63: 1817.
  • 2
    Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histopathological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19: 40310.
  • 3
    Lee AHS, Pinder SE, Macmillan RD et al. Prognostic value of lymph vascular invasion in women with lymph node negative invasive breast carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 35762.
  • 4
    Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD et al. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 2007; 109: 17218.
  • 5
    Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T et al. Comparison of core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical specimens for accurate preoperative evaluation of ER, PgR and HER2 status of breast cancer patients. Cancer Sci 2010; 101: 20749.
  • 6
    Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T et al. The correlation between ultrasonographic findings and pathologic features in breast disorders. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010; 40: 90512.
  • 7
    Luck AA, Evans AJ, James JJ et al. Breast carcinoma with basal phenotype: mammographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: 34651.
  • 8
    Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ et al. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening detected invasive breast cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 137780.
  • 9
    Lee SH, Cho N, Kim SJ et al. Correlation between high resolution dynamic MR features and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 2008; 9: 108.
  • 10
    Kim SH, Seo BK, Lee J et al. Correlation of ultrasound findings with histology, tumor grade, and biological markers in breast cancer. Acta Oncol 2008; 47: 15318.
  • 11
    Amano G, Ohuchi N, Ishibashi T et al. Correlation of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with precise histopathological map concerning carcinoma extension in the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000; 60: 4355.
  • 12
    Takase K, Furuta A, Harada N et al. Assessing the extent of breast cancer using multidetector row helical computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30: 47985.
  • 13
    Harada-Shoji N, Yamada T, Ishida T et al. Usefulness of lesion image mapping with multidetector-row helical computed tomography using a dedicated skin marker in breast-conserving surgery. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 86874.
  • 14
    Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. Tumor of the Breast and Females Gental Organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2003.
  • 15
    Rosen PP. Rosen’s Breast Pathology, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippncott Williams & Wilkins, 2009.
  • 16
    Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 1998; 11: 15568.
  • 17
    Wolff AC, Hammond MH, Schwartz JN et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 11845.
  • 18
    Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD et al. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 131929.
  • 19
    Jalava P, Kuopio T, Juntti-Patinen L et al. Ki67 immunohistochemistry: a valuable marker in prognostication but with a risk of misclassification: proliferation subgroups formed based on Ki67 immunoreactivity and standardized mitotic index. Histopathology 2006; 48: 67482.
  • 20
    Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 2009; 250: 63847.
  • 21
    Inoue M, Sano T, Watai R et al. Dynamic multidetector CT of breast tumors: diagnostic features and comparison with conventional techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 67986.
  • 22
    Jeh SK, Kim SH, Kim HS et al. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging findings with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 1029.