US and dense breasts: where do we stand?
The use of ultrasonography in dense breast remains a controversial topic. It is acknowledged that ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography increases the detection rate of breast cancers. However, the main limitation of US, in addition to its operator dependent nature, is its low specificity, leading...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal de radiologie 2008-09, Vol.89 (9 Pt 2), p.1169-1179 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | fre |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1179 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 Pt 2 |
| container_start_page | 1169 |
| container_title | Journal de radiologie |
| container_volume | 89 |
| creator | Leconte, I Fellah, L |
| description | The use of ultrasonography in dense breast remains a controversial topic. It is acknowledged that ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography increases the detection rate of breast cancers. However, the main limitation of US, in addition to its operator dependent nature, is its low specificity, leading to a high rate of false positive results. Several techniques can be used to improve the performance of US and cost/effectiveness ratio, such as Doppler imaging, harmonic imaging, spatial and frequency compound imaging, all of which are routinely available, and elastosonography, contrast US and 3D US which are still in development. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0221-0363(08)73927-1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69515358</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69515358</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p139t-94c213b5fcc664e9603ca87b5dbb7a511e616fa95789568be41a37219fa1af53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9z0tLw0AUBeBZKLZWf4IyK6mL6NyZzMuNSLFVKLhoXYc7yQ1W8jKTUPz3FqyuDhw-DhzGrkDcgQBzvxFSQiKUUXPhbq3y0iZwwqb_9YSdx_gphARI0zM2AWetdAKmbP6-4dgUvKAmEg89YRziA99_UE-8aPmeeBwO4PGCnZZYRbo85oxtl8_bxUuyflu9Lp7WSQfKD4lPcwkq6DLPjUnJG6FydDboIgSLGoAMmBK9ts5r4wKlgMpK8CUCllrN2M3vbNe3XyPFIat3MaeqwobaMWbGa9BKuwO8PsIx1FRkXb-rsf_O_q6pH9m6TO4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69515358</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>US and dense breasts: where do we stand?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Leconte, I ; Fellah, L</creator><creatorcontrib>Leconte, I ; Fellah, L</creatorcontrib><description>The use of ultrasonography in dense breast remains a controversial topic. It is acknowledged that ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography increases the detection rate of breast cancers. However, the main limitation of US, in addition to its operator dependent nature, is its low specificity, leading to a high rate of false positive results. Several techniques can be used to improve the performance of US and cost/effectiveness ratio, such as Doppler imaging, harmonic imaging, spatial and frequency compound imaging, all of which are routinely available, and elastosonography, contrast US and 3D US which are still in development.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0221-0363</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0221-0363(08)73927-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18772801</identifier><language>fre</language><publisher>France</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age Factors ; Aged ; Biopsy ; Breast - pathology ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; False Positive Reactions ; Female ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; Lymph Node Excision ; Mammography ; Middle Aged ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Risk Factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography, Doppler ; Ultrasonography, Mammary - economics ; Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal de radiologie, 2008-09, Vol.89 (9 Pt 2), p.1169-1179</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18772801$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leconte, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fellah, L</creatorcontrib><title>US and dense breasts: where do we stand?</title><title>Journal de radiologie</title><addtitle>J Radiol</addtitle><description>The use of ultrasonography in dense breast remains a controversial topic. It is acknowledged that ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography increases the detection rate of breast cancers. However, the main limitation of US, in addition to its operator dependent nature, is its low specificity, leading to a high rate of false positive results. Several techniques can be used to improve the performance of US and cost/effectiveness ratio, such as Doppler imaging, harmonic imaging, spatial and frequency compound imaging, all of which are routinely available, and elastosonography, contrast US and 3D US which are still in development.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Breast - pathology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>False Positive Reactions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</subject><subject>Lymph Node Excision</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Doppler</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary - economics</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</subject><issn>0221-0363</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9z0tLw0AUBeBZKLZWf4IyK6mL6NyZzMuNSLFVKLhoXYc7yQ1W8jKTUPz3FqyuDhw-DhzGrkDcgQBzvxFSQiKUUXPhbq3y0iZwwqb_9YSdx_gphARI0zM2AWetdAKmbP6-4dgUvKAmEg89YRziA99_UE-8aPmeeBwO4PGCnZZYRbo85oxtl8_bxUuyflu9Lp7WSQfKD4lPcwkq6DLPjUnJG6FydDboIgSLGoAMmBK9ts5r4wKlgMpK8CUCllrN2M3vbNe3XyPFIat3MaeqwobaMWbGa9BKuwO8PsIx1FRkXb-rsf_O_q6pH9m6TO4</recordid><startdate>200809</startdate><enddate>200809</enddate><creator>Leconte, I</creator><creator>Fellah, L</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200809</creationdate><title>US and dense breasts: where do we stand?</title><author>Leconte, I ; Fellah, L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p139t-94c213b5fcc664e9603ca87b5dbb7a511e616fa95789568be41a37219fa1af53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>fre</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Breast - pathology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>False Positive Reactions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</topic><topic>Lymph Node Excision</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Doppler</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary - economics</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leconte, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fellah, L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal de radiologie</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leconte, I</au><au>Fellah, L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>US and dense breasts: where do we stand?</atitle><jtitle>Journal de radiologie</jtitle><addtitle>J Radiol</addtitle><date>2008-09</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>89</volume><issue>9 Pt 2</issue><spage>1169</spage><epage>1179</epage><pages>1169-1179</pages><issn>0221-0363</issn><abstract>The use of ultrasonography in dense breast remains a controversial topic. It is acknowledged that ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography increases the detection rate of breast cancers. However, the main limitation of US, in addition to its operator dependent nature, is its low specificity, leading to a high rate of false positive results. Several techniques can be used to improve the performance of US and cost/effectiveness ratio, such as Doppler imaging, harmonic imaging, spatial and frequency compound imaging, all of which are routinely available, and elastosonography, contrast US and 3D US which are still in development.</abstract><cop>France</cop><pmid>18772801</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0221-0363(08)73927-1</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0221-0363 |
| ispartof | Journal de radiologie, 2008-09, Vol.89 (9 Pt 2), p.1169-1179 |
| issn | 0221-0363 |
| language | fre |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69515358 |
| source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Adult Age Factors Aged Biopsy Breast - pathology Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - pathology Breast Neoplasms - surgery Cost-Benefit Analysis False Positive Reactions Female Humans Imaging, Three-Dimensional Lymph Node Excision Mammography Middle Aged Predictive Value of Tests Risk Factors Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasonography, Doppler Ultrasonography, Mammary - economics Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods |
| title | US and dense breasts: where do we stand? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T16%3A34%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=US%20and%20dense%20breasts:%20where%20do%20we%20stand?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20de%20radiologie&rft.au=Leconte,%20I&rft.date=2008-09&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=9%20Pt%202&rft.spage=1169&rft.epage=1179&rft.pages=1169-1179&rft.issn=0221-0363&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0221-0363(08)73927-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E69515358%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69515358&rft_id=info:pmid/18772801&rfr_iscdi=true |