| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Radiology, Vol 178, 155-158, Copyright © 1991 by Radiological Society of North America
ARTICLES |
MA Helvie, DR Pennes, M Rebner and DD Adler
Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor 48109-0326.
All recommendations for mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions seen at mammography during a 6-month period were reviewed to establish compliance rate and eventual outcome. One hundred forty-four of 2,650 mammograms (5%) showed minimal abnormalities that warranted short-term and periodic mammographic follow-up. Rates of compliance at 4 months and at 1, 2, and 3 years were 88%, 71%, 60%, and 47%, respectively. Progressive mammographic change was found in 10 patients, only one of whom had a carcinoma. It was concluded that mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions is a reasonable alternative to surgical biopsy, although patient compliance remains a significant problem.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. D. Lehman, C. M. Rutter, P. R. Eby, E. White, D. S. M. Buist, and S. H. Taplin Lesion and Patient Characteristics Associated with Malignancy After a Probably Benign Finding on Community Practice Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 511 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, G. Hopf, C. Graf, and E. A. Sickles Probably Benign Breast Masses at US: Is Follow-up an Acceptable Alternative to Biopsy? Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 87 - 93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. E. Blane, R. W. Pinsky, A. I. Joe, A. E. Pichan, M. R. Blajan, and M. A. Helvie Costs of Achieving High Patient Compliance After Recall from Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 894 - 896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. Hall, E. A. Sickles, C. Lehman, R. Smith-Bindman, B. C. Yankaskas, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, and K. Kerlikowske Short-Interval Follow-up in Screening Mammography * Dr Sickles and colleagues respond: Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 371 - 373. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. K. Koskela, M. Sudah, M. H. Berg, V. J. Karja, P. K. Mustonen, V. Kataja, and R. S. Vanninen Add-on Device for Stereotactic Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: How Many Biopsy Specimens Are Needed for a Reliable Diagnosis? Radiology, September 1, 2005; 236(3): 801 - 809. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, L. A. Abraham, C. D. Lehman, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, W. E. Barlow, J. H. Voeks, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, et al. Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations with Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 684 - 692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, M. H. Fuchsjaeger, G. Hopf, M. Morgun, C. Graf, R. Mallek, and E. A. Sickles Follow-up of Palpable Circumscribed Noncalcified Solid Breast Masses at Mammography and US: Can Biopsy Be Averted? Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 850 - 856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. C. Foster, M. A. Helvie, N. E. Gregory, M. Rebner, A. V. Nees, and C. Paramagul Lobular Carcinoma in Situ or Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia at Core-Needle Biopsy: Is Excisional Biopsy Necessary? Radiology, June 1, 2004; 231(3): 813 - 819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. R. Yabroff, N. Breen, S. W. Vernon, H. I. Meissner, A. N. Freedman, and R. Ballard-Barbash What Factors Are Associated with Diagnostic Follow-Up after Abnormal Mammograms? Findings from a U.S. National Survey Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2004; 13(5): 723 - 732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. B. Gordon, F. A. Gagnon, and L. Lanzkowsky Solid Breast Masses Diagnosed as Fibroadenoma at Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy: Acceptable Rates of Growth at Long-term Follow-up Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 233 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. R. Yabroff, K. S. Washington, A. Leader, E. Neilson, and J. Mandelblatt Is the Promise of Cancer-Screening Programs Being Compromised? Quality of Follow-Up Care after Abnormal Screening Results Med Care Res Rev, September 1, 2003; 60(3): 294 - 331. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, and E. A. Sickles Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammography: Are We Doing the Right Thing? J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): 418 - 419. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. L. Rosen, J. A. Baker, and M. S. Soo Malignant Lesions Initially Subjected to Short-term Mammographic Follow-up Radiology, April 1, 2002; 223(1): 221 - 228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Vizcaíno, L. Gadea, L. Andreo, D. Salas, F. Ruiz-Perales, D. Cuevas, C. Herranz, and F. Bueno Short-term Follow-up Results in 795 Nonpalpable Probably Benign Lesions Detected at Screening Mammography Radiology, May 1, 2001; 219(2): 475 - 483. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Brenner, L. W. Bassett, L. L. Fajardo, D. D. Dershaw, W. P. Evans III, R. Hunt, C. Lee, I. Tocino, P. Fisher, M. McCombs, et al. Stereotactic Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: A Multi-institutional Prospective Trial Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 866 - 872. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Sickles Probably Benign Breast Lesions: When Should Follow-up Be Recommended and What Is the Optimal Follow-up Protocol? Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 11 - 14. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Rubin Six-month Follow-up: An Alternative View Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 15 - 18. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. G. Orel, N. Kay, C. Reynolds, and D. C. Sullivan BI-RADS Categorization As a Predictor of Malignancy Radiology, June 1, 1999; 211(3): 845 - 850. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
