Эволюция рентгенологического метода исследования молочных желез

Эволюция рентгенологического метода исследования молочных желез

Автор: Оксанчук Елена Александровна, Меских Елена Валерьевна, Колесник Антонина Юрьевна, Фастовец Юлия Николаевна, Солодкий Владимир Алексеевич

Журнал: Вестник Российского научного центра рентгенорадиологии Минздрава России @vestnik-rncrr

Рубрика: Обзоры

Статья в выпуске: 2 т.17, 2017 года.

Бесплатный доступ

Рак молочной железы - одно из самых распространенных злокачественных заболеваний в мире. Выявление ранних форм рака является приоритетным направлением диагностической маммологической службы. В настоящее время активно развиваются и совершенствуются новые варианты исследования молочных желез, и лидирующее значение имеет рентгенологический метод исследования. Целью настоящей работы было провести анализ имеющихся данных мировой литературы для оценки значимости рентгенологического метода в ранней диагностике злокачественных заболеваний молочных желез.

Рак молочной железы, диагностика, маммография, контрастная маммография

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/14955543

IDR: 14955543

Список литературы Эволюция рентгенологического метода исследования молочных желез

  • Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2015 году. Москва: ФГБУ «МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена Минзравсоцразвития России». 2016. С. 25.
  • Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2015 году (заболеваемость и смертность). Москва: ФГБУ «МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена Минзравсоцразвития России». 2017. С.16.
  • Павлова Т.В. Томосинтез в дифференциальной диагностике непальпируемых образований молочных желез. Дис. канд.мед.наук:14.01.13/ФГБУ«РНЦРР»МЗ РФ. Москва. 2015.
  • Шершнева М.А., Солодкий В.А., Меских Е.В., Фомин Д.К., Шерстнева Т.В., Измайлов Т.Р. Возможность ОФЭКТ/КТ в уточняющей диагностике узловых образований молочных желез. Вестник Российского научного центра рентгенорадиологии Минздрава России. 2015. № 3. Т. 15. С. 1-26.
  • Afzal S., Shafqat G., Rehman H. Usefulness of hook wire localization biopsy under imaging guidance for nonpalpable breast lesions detected radiologically. Int J Womens Health. 2012. V. 4. P. 445-449.
  • Backer J.A., Lo J.Y. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2011. V. 18. P. 1298-1310.
  • Blum K.S., Rubbert C., Mathys B., et al. Use of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for intramammary cancer staging: preliminary results. Acad Radiol. 2014. V. 21. N.11. P. 1363-9.
  • Boone J.M., Nelson T.R., Lindfors K.K., Seibert J.A. Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology. 2001. V. 221. N.3. P. 657-667.
  • Bowen S.L., Wu Y., Chaudhari A.J., et al. Initial characterization of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner during human imaging. J Nucl Med. 2009. V.50. N.9. P.1401-1408.
  • Broeders M., Moss S., Nyström L., et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen.2012. V. 19. N. 1. P. 14-25.
  • Carter C.L., Allen C., Henson D.E. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status and survival in 24740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989. V. 63. P. 181-187.
  • Ciatto S., Houssami N., Bernardi D., et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STROM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013. V. 14. P. 583-589.
  • Cheung Y-C., Juan Y-H., Lin Y-C., et al. Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: Enhancement Analysis on BI-RADS 4 Non-Mass Microcalcifications in Screened Women. PLoS ONE. 2016.V. 11. N. 9. e0162740.
  • Cheung Y.C., Tsai H.P., Lo Y.F., et al. Clinical utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast microcalcifications without associated mass: a preliminary analysis. Eur Radiol. 2016. V. 26. N. 4. P. 1082-1089.
  • Dabbous F.M., Dolecek T.A, Berbaum M.L., et al. Impact of a false-positive screening mammogram on subsequent screening behavior and stage at breast cancer diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017. V. 26. N 3. P. 397-403
  • Dromain C., Thibault F., Diekmann F., et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012. V. 14. N. 3. R. 94.
  • Elliott R. Initial Experience with Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (SenoBright) -In a Comprehensive Clinical Breast Center. Journal of Cancer Therapy. 2017. V. 8. N. 2. P. 146-154.
  • Ernst M.F., Roukema J.A. Diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer: a review. The Breast. 2002. V. 11. N. 1. P. 13-22.
  • Escalopa S., Blasco J.A., Reza M.M., et al. A systematic review of FDA-PET in breast cancer. Med. Oncol. 2010. V. 27. N. 1. P. 114-129.
  • Ferlay J., Shin H., Bray F., et al. GLOBOCAN-2008 v 3.0. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10. International agency for research on cancer//URL: http://globocan.iarc.fr. (дата обращения 24-04-2017).
  • Frank H.A., Hall F.M., Steer M.L. Preoperative localization of non palpable breast lesions demonstrated by mammography. N Engl J Med. 1976.V. 295. N. 5. P. 259-260.
  • Freer P.E. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics. 2015. V. 35. N. 2. P. 302-315.
  • Gallowitsch H.J., Kraschl P., Igerc I., et al. Sentinel none SPECT/CT in breast cancer. Can we expect any additional and clinically relevant information? Nuklearmedizin. 2007. V. 46. N. 6. P. 252-256. 19
  • Gold R.H., Bassett L.W., Widoff B.E. Radiologic history exhibit highlights from the history of mammography. RadioGraphics. 1990. N. 10. P. 1111-1131.
  • Ikeda D.M., Miyake K.K. Breast imaging. The requisites. Third edition. St.Louis, Missouri: Elsevier. 2017. P. 36.
  • Lakhtakia R.A. Brief History of Breast Cancer Part I: Surgical domination reinvented. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2014. V. 14. N. 2. P. 166-169.
  • Lalji U.C., Houben I.P., Prevos R., et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol. 2016. V. 26. N. 12. P. 4371-4379.
  • Lång K., Andersson I., Rosso A, et al. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur.Radiol. 2016. V. 26. N. 1. P.184-190.
  • Leborgne R. The breast in roentgen diagnosis. Impressora Uruguay, Montevideo. 1953.
  • Lerman H., Lievshitz G., Zak O., et al. Improved sentinel node identification by SPECT/CN in overweight patient with breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007. V. 48. N. 2. P. 201-207.
  • Lindfors K.K., Boone J.M., Nelson T.R., et al. Dedicated breast CT: Initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2008. V. 246. N. 3. P. 725-733.
  • Lindfors K.K., Boone J.M., Newell M.S., et al. Dedicated breast CT: the optimal cross sectional imaging solution? Radiol Clin North Am. 2010. V. 48. N. 5. P. 1043-1054.
  • Łuczyńska E., Heinze-Paluchowska S., Hendrick E., et al. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Med Sci Monit. 2015. V. 12. N. 21. P. 1358-1367.
  • Luczyńska E., Heinze S., Adamczyk A., et al. Comparison of the Mammography, Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Ultrasonography in a Group of 116 patients. Anticancer Res. 2016. V. 36. N. 8. P. 4359-4366.
  • Mahner S., Schirrmacher S., Brenner W., et al. Comparison between positron emission tomography using 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, conventional imaging and computed tomography for staging of breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008. N. 19. P. 1249-1254.
  • Morgan M.P., Cooke M.M., McCarthy G.M. Microcalcifications associated with breast cancer: an epiphenomenon or biologically significant feature of selected tumors? J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2005. V. 10. N. 2. P. 181-7.
  • Performance measures for 3,603,832 screening mammography studies from 1996 to 2006 by age. Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2008. NCI-funded breast cancer surveillance consortium co-operative agreement.
  • Pinder S.E. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): pathological features, differential diagnosis, prognostic factors and specimen evaluation. Mod Pathol. 2010. V. 23. N. 2. P.8-13.
  • Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography in breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005. V. 353. N. 17. P. 1773-1783.
  • Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C.A., Yaffe M.J., et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: Objectives and Methodology. Radiology. 2005. V. 236. N. 2. P. 353-362.
  • Pisano E.D., Hendrick R.E., Yaffe M.J., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008. V. 246. N. 2. P. 376-383.
  • Shapiro S., Strax P., Venet L. Evaluation of periodic breast cancer screening with mammography methodology and early observations. JAMA. 1966. V. 195. N.9. P.731-738.
  • Shapiro S., Venet W., Strax P., Venet L. Review: periodic screening for breast cancer: the health Insurance plan project and its sequelae, 1963-1986. Journal of Public Health Policy. 1989. V. 10. N. 3. P. 405-407.
  • Sergieva S., Alexandrova E., Baitchev G., Parvanova V. SPECT/CN in breast cancer. Arch Oncol. 2012. V. 20. N. 3-4. P. 127-131.
  • Sergieva S., Mihaylova I., Alexandrova E., et al. Clinical application of SPECT/CN in breast cancer. Arch in Cancer Res. 2015. V. 1: 1.
  • Smith R.A., Duffy S.W., Gabe R., et al. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 2004. V. 42. N. 5. P. 793-806.
  • Thibaulta F. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: better than MRI? European Journal of Radiology. 2012. V. 81. N. 1. P. 162-164.
  • Tingberg A., Zachrisson S. Digital mammography and tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis. Expert Opinion Med Diagn. 2011. V. 5. N. 6. P. 517-526.
  • Tinberg A. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis -initial experiensis. Rad.Protect. Dosimetry. 2011. V. 147. N. 1-2. P.180-183.
  • Van Steen A., Van Tiggelen R. Short history of mammography: a Belgian perspective. JBR-BTR. 2007. N. 90. P. 151-153.
  • Wald N.J., Murphy P., Major P., et al. UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. BMJ. 1995. V. 311. N. 7014. P. 1189-1193.
  • Weigel S., Decker T., Korsching E., et al. Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology. 2010. V. 255. N. 3. P. 138-145.
  • Wu Y., Bowen S.L., Yang K., et al. PET characteristics of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner prototype. Phys Med Biol. 2009. V. 54. N. 13. P. 4273-4287.
  • Yankaskas B.C., Cleveland R.J., Schell M.J., et al. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001. V. 177. N. 3. P. 543-549.
Еще
Статья научная
QR-код для установки приложения SciUp Наведите камеру и скачайте бесплатное приложение SciUp