Jacky Luiten

General discussion and future perspectives | 137 9 References 1. Plevritis SK, Munoz D, Kurian AW, Stout NK, Alagoz O, Near AM, et al. Association of Screening and Treatment With Breast Cancer Mortality by Molecular Subtype in US Women, 2000 ‐ 2012. JAMA. 2018;319(2):154 ‐ 164. 2. van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ, National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in Netherlands Study G. Nation ‐ wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(16):3517 ‐ 3525. 3. Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen ‐ film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology. 2012;265(3):707 ‐ 714. 4. Baker SG, Prorok PC, Kramer BS. Lead time and overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(12). 5. Marcus PM, Prorok PC, Miller AB, DeVoto EJ, Kramer BS. Conceptualizing overdiagnosis in cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(4). 6. Ellis IO. Intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast: morphology, associated risk and molecular biology. Mod Pathol. 2010;23 Suppl 2:S1 ‐ 7. 7. Weigel S, Hense HW, Heidrich J, Berkemeyer S, Heindel W, Heidinger O. Digital Mammography Screening: Does Age Influence the Detection Rates of Low ‐ , Intermediate ‐ , and High ‐ Grade Ductal Carcinoma in Situ? Radiology. 2016;278(3):707 ‐ 713. 8. Paci E, Group EW. Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:5 ‐ 13. 9. Independent UKPoBCS. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778 ‐ 1786. 10. Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Groenewoud JH, Donkers ‐ van Rossum AB, Voogd AC. Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population ‐ based study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(12):3098 ‐ 3103. 11. Calhoun BC. Core Needle Biopsy of the Breast: An Evaluation of Contemporary Data. Surg Pathol Clin. 2018;11(1):1 ‐ 16. 12. Sen LQ, Berg WA, Hooley RJ, Carter GJ, Desouki MM, Sumkin JH. Core Breast Biopsies Showing Lobular Carcinoma In Situ Should Be Excised and Surveillance Is Reasonable for Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(5):1132 ‐ 1145. 13. Mooney KL, Bassett LW, Apple SK. Upgrade rates of high ‐ risk breast lesions diagnosed on core needle biopsy: a single ‐ institution experience and literature review. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(12):1471 ‐ 1484. 14. Donaldson AR, Sieck L, Booth CN, Calhoun BC. Radial scars diagnosed on breast core biopsy: Frequency of atypia and carcinoma on excision and implications for management. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2016;30:201 ‐ 207. 15. Rudin AV, Hoskin TL, Fahy A, Farrell AM, Nassar A, Ghosh K, et al. Flat Epithelial Atypia on Core Biopsy and Upgrade to Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta ‐ Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(12):3549 ‐ 3558. 16. Ouldamer L, Poisson E, Arbion F, Bonneau C, Vilde A, Body G, et al. All pure flat atypical atypia lesions of the breast diagnosed using percutaneous vacuum ‐ assisted breast biopsy do not need surgical excision. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2018;40:4 ‐ 9. 17. Speer ME, Huang ML, Dogan BE, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Hess KR, et al. High risk breast lesions identified on MRI ‐ guided vacuum ‐ assisted needle biopsy: outcome of surgical excision and imaging follow ‐ up. Br J Radiol. 2018:20180300. 18. Chou WYY, Veis DJ, Aft R. Radial scar on image ‐ guided breast biopsy: is surgical excision necessary? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170(2):313 ‐ 320. 19. Falomo E, Adejumo C, Carson KA, Harvey S, Mullen L, Myers K. Variability in the Management Recommendations Given for High ‐ risk Breast Lesions Detected on Image ‐ guided Core Needle Biopsy at U.S. Academic Institutions. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2018.