Download PDF
Rofo 2014; 186(6): 627-634
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1369056
DRG-Mitteilungen
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

AG Mamma – Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 04.05.2013 in Frankfurt am Main – Standards in Technik und Befundung

Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 May 2014 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Consensus meeting of course directors in breast imaging, 4 May 2013, in Frankfurt am Main – Topic: Standards in Technique and Reporting.

 

  • Referenzen

  • 1 Müller-Schimpfle M. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 5. 5. 2007 in Frankfurt am Main – Thema: Mikrokalk. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2008; 180: 66-68
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Müller-Schimpfle MP, Heindel W, Kettritz U, Schulz-Wendtland R, Bick U. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 9. 5. 2009 in Frankfurt am Main – Thema Herdbefunde. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2010; 182: 1-5
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Müller-Schimpfle MP, Heindel W, Kettritz U, Schulz-Wendtland R, Bick U. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 9. 5. 2009 in Frankfurt am Main – Thema Herdbefunde. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 919-24
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Fischer U, Schwethelm L, Baum FT et al. : Aufwand, Zuverlässigkeit und histologische Ergebnisse der MR-gesteuerten Vakuumbiopsie suspekter Mammabefunde – Retrospektive Auswertung von 389 Interventionen. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2009; 181: 774-81
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Siegmann KC, Müller KT, Vogel U et al. MR imaging of the breast before and after neoadjuvant treatment – enhancement characteristics and T 2 signal intensity of breast cancers and breast parenchyma. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2010; 182: 493-500
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dietzel M, Baltzer PA, Vag T et al. Magnetic resonance mammografy in small vs. advanced breast lesions – systematic comparison reveals significant impact of lesion size on diagnostic accuracy in 936 histologically verified breast lesions. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 126-35
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Klijn JGM. Early Diagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer by Magnetic Resonance Imaging: What Is Realistic?. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1441-1445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Houssami N, Hayes D. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer?. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59: 290-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 563-567
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Peters NHGM, van Esser S, van den Bosch MAAJ et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: The MONET – randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 879-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Agrawal G, Su M-Y, Nalcioglu O et al. Significance of Breast Lesion Descriptors in the ACR BI-RADS MRI Lexicon. Cancer 2009; 115: 1363-1380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Albert U-S (Hrsg) ). Stufe-3-Leitlinie Brustkrebsfrüherkennung in Deutschland. 1. Aktualisierung 2008. München – Wien – New York: W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag;
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Kreienberg R, Kopp I, Albert U et al. Interdisziplinare S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Langversion 3. 0, Aktualisierung 2012.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 1296-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 De Lauro RL et al. Breast Density and Mammografy Reporting Act of 2011. I.H. Oct 5, 2011;. http://beta.congress.gov/ H.R. 3102 – 112th Congress (2011–2012) Breast Density and Mammografy Reporting Act of 2011 _ Congress.gov _ Library of Congress.htm
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Price ER, Hargreaves J, Lipson JA et al. The California Breast Density Information Group: A Collaborative Response to the Issues of Breast Density, Breast Cancer Risk, and Breast Density Notification Legislation. Radiology 2013; [published online Sept 10, 2013]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 National Cancer Institute. Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR). http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/networks/prospr/ Last Modified: 06 Nov 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fischer U, Kuhl K. Paradigmenwechsel in der Mammadiagnostik im Zeitalter der Mamma-MRT. Radiologie up2date 2013; 3: 245-258
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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 Mammografy, Breast MRI, Breast Ultrasound, and Other Technologies for the Detection of Clinically Occult. Breast Cancer Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 18-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Diehl F, Egidi G, Klemperer D et al. Selbst zahlen? Ein Ratgeber zu Individuellen Gesundheitsleistungen (IGeL) für Patientinnen und Patienten sowie Ärztinnen und Ärzte. Herausgeber: Bundesärztekammer und Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung; 2. Auflage, November 2012; S. 4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 http://www.vzbv.de/cps/rde/xbcr/vzbv/IGeL-Fakten-vzbv-2012-10-15.pdf
    PubMed
  • 23 Sickles EA. The use of breast imaging to screen women at high risk for cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48: 859-878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A et al. BI-RADS analoge Klassifikation von Ultraschallbefunden der Brust – Konsensus des Arbeitskreises Mammasonografie der DEGUM. Ultraschall Med 2006; 27: 374-379
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lehman CD. and the ACR Committee on Breast Imaging for Appropriateness Criteria and Practice Guidelines. ACR PRACTICE GUIDELINE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRASTENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (MRI) OF THE BREAST. Revised 2013 (Resolution 12)* Oct 1. http://www.acr.org/~/media/2a0eb28eb59041e2825179afb72ef624.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Francissen CM, Dings PJ, van Dalen T et al. Axillary recurrence after a tumor-positive sentinel lymph node biopsy without axillary treatment: a review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 4140-4149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L et al. US-guided 14-gauge Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: Results of a Validation Study in 1352 Cases. Radiology 2008; 248: 406-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fallenberg EM, Bick U. Radiologische Besonderheiten familiärer Tumoren. In: Mönnich A, Hrsg. Komme ich aus einer Krebsfamilie? Informationen für Männer und Frauen zum familiären Brust- und Eierstockkrebs. Mamma mia spezial. 2.. Auflage Juni 2013. Kronberg: GeKo Verlag; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Klijn JGM. Early Diagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer by Magnetic Resonance Imaging: What Is Realistic?. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1441-1449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kim JY, Cho N, Koo HR et al. Unilateral breast cancer: screening of contralateral breast by using preoperative MR imaging reduces incidence of metachronous cancer. Radiology 2013; 267: 57-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar