Download PDF
Senologie - Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie 2017; 14(02): 78-81
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-105668
Aktuell diskutiert
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Diskurs – Konsensustreffen Mammadiagnostik – Was hat Bestand von den neuen Standards?

Contributor(s):
Markus Müller-Schimpfle
1   Klinik für Radiologie, Neuroradiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum Frankfurt-Höchst, Frankfurt am Main
2   radiomedicum, Frankfurt am Main
,
Ulrich Bick
,
Markus Hahn
,
Katrin Hegenscheid
,
Thomas Helbich
,
Ute Kettritz
,
Claudia Kurtz
,
Alexander Mundinger
,
Katja C. Siegmann-Luz
,
Per Skaane
,
Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 June 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Durch strukturierte Bearbeitung und Einschätzung klinisch relevanter, wissenschaftlich aber unbeantworteter Fragestellungen auf dem Gebiet der Mammadiagnostik sollte durch das Konsensusmeeting 2015 eine zunehmende Standardisierung der bildgebenden Technik und Befundung ermöglicht werden. Was hat davon kurz vor dem nächsten Treffen in 2017 noch Bestand?
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS® – Mammography. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston: VA: American College of Radiology; 2003 4th Edition.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS® – Ultrasound. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston: VA: American College of Radiology; 2003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS® – Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston: VA: American College of Radiology; 2003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
  • 5 Müller-Schimpfle MP. Heindel W. Kettritz U. et al. 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
  • 6 Müller-Schimpfle MP. Heindel W. Kettritz U. et al. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 9.5.2009 in Frankfurt am Main – Thema Herdbefunde. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 919-924
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Müller-Schimpfle MP. Heindel W. Kettritz U. et al. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 04.05.2013 in Frankfurt am Main – Standards in Technik und Befundung. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 410-416
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 D’Orsi CJ. Sickles EA. Mendelson EB. et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston: VA: American College of Radiology; 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Marlene MJ. Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Radiol Technol 2017; 88: 299M-319M
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Park C. Vogl T. Müller-Schimpfle M. Tomosynthese: eine Technik der Zukunft?. Frauenarzt 2017; 58: 122-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sardanelli F. Aase HS. Álvarez M. et al. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies fromAustria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Eur Radiol 2016; DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4612-z. Published online 02.11.2016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bojanic K. Katavic N. Smolic M. et al. Implementation of Elastography Score and Strain Ratio in Combination with B-Mode Ultrasound Avoids Unnecessary Biopsies of Breast Lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017; 43 (04) 804-816 Epub 2017 Jan 13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cong R. Li J. Guo S. A new qualitative pattern classification of shear wave elastograghy for solid breast mass evaluation. Eur J Radiol 2017; 87: 111-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Müller-Schimpfle M. Graf O. Madjar H. et al. Diskussionspapier – BI-RADS die 5. – eine Kurzmitteilung aus deutsch-/österreichischer Sicht. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76: 490-496
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 http://www.ago-online.de/fileadmin/downloads/leitlinien/mamma/2017_03/AGO_deutsch/PDF_Gesamtdatei_deutsch/Alle%20aktuellen%20Empfehlungen_2017.pdf Stand 19.3.2017
    PubMed
  • 16 Melnikow J. Fenton JJ. Whitlock EP. et al. Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force [Internet]. AHRQ Publication No. 14-05201-EF-3 January 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0084781/pdf/PubMedHealth_PMH0084781.pdf Stand 19.3.2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Huzarski T. Górecka-Szyld B. Huzarska J. et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging, mammography and ultrasound in women at average and intermediate risk of breast cancer. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2017; 15: 4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 De Placido S. De Angelis C. Giuliano M. et al. Imaging tests in staging and surveillance of non-metastatic breast cancer: changes in routine clinical practice and cost implications. Br J Cancer 2017; 116 (06) 821-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar