AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Feig, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wallace, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Feig, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wallace, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 128, Issue 3, 403-408
Copyright © 1977 by American Roentgen Ray Society

Articles

Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors

SA Feig, GS Shaber, A Patchefsky, GF Schwartz, J Edeiken, HI Libshitz, R Nerlinger, RF Curley, and JD Wallace

Findings by xeromammography and clinical examination were compared in 16,000 self-selected women aged 45-64 who participated in a voluntary breast cancer screening program. A total of 138 malignancies were detected: 108 (78%) by mammography and 78 (57%) by clinical examination. Mammography was more effective for large breasts, fatty breasts, and in older women. Conversely, clinical examination was more effective for small breasts, dense breasts, and retroareolar lesions. Clinical detection decreased strikingly for lesions with negative lymph nodes, in situ and microinvasive lesions, deeply situated lesions, and lesions where microcalcifications were the sole mammographic finding.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
D. Fuster, J. Duch, P. Paredes, M. Velasco, M. Munoz, G. Santamaria, M. Fontanillas, and F. Pons
Preoperative Staging of Large Primary Breast Cancer With [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Compared With Conventional Imaging Procedures
J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2008; 26(29): 4746 - 4751.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
D. Da Costa, A. Taddese, M. L. Cure, D. Gerson, R. Poppiti Jr, and L. E. Esserman
Common and Unusual Diseases of the Nipple-Areolar Complex
RadioGraphics, October 1, 2007; 27(suppl_1): S65 - S77.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
J. M. Park, E. A. Franken Jr, M. Garg, L. L. Fajardo, and L. T. Niklason
Breast Tomosynthesis: Present Considerations and Future Applications
RadioGraphics, October 1, 2007; 27(suppl_1): S231 - S240.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. T. Yang, C.-J. Lai, G. J. Whitman, W. A. Murphy Jr., M. J. Dryden, A. C. Kushwaha, A. A. Sahin, D. Johnston, P. J. Dempsey, and C. C. Shaw
Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): W576 - W581.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse
Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations
Radiology, October 1, 2002; 225(1): 165 - 175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B. C. Yankaskas, M. J. Schell, R. E. Bird, and D. A. Desrochers
Reassessment of Breast Cancers Missed During Routine Screening Mammography: A Community-Based Study
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 535 - 541.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
M. T. Mandelson, N. Oestreicher, P. L. Porter, D. White, C. A. Finder, S. H. Taplin, and E. White
Breast Density as a Predictor of Mammographic Detection: Comparison of Interval- and Screen-Detected Cancers
J Natl Cancer Inst, July 5, 2000; 92(13): 1081 - 1087.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1977 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.