Jacky Luiten

44 | Chapter 3 References 1. Jing HYY, Wernick MN, Yarusso LM, Nishikawa RM. A comparison study of image features between FFDM and film mammogram images. Med Phys 2012;39(7):8. 2. Nederend J, Duijm LE, Voogd AC, et al. Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14(1):R10. 3. van Steenbergen LN, Voogd AC, Roukema JA, et al. Screening caused rising incidence rates of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Canc Res Treat 2009;115(1):181e3. 4. Lloyd RV. Endocrine Pathology, differential diagnosis and molecular advances. New York: Springer Science þ Business Media; 2004. 5. Sennerstam RB, Franzen BSH, Wiksell HOT, et al. Core‐needle biopsy of breast cancer is associated with a higher rate of distant metastases 5 to 15 years after diagnosis than FNA biopsy. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125(10):748‐756. 6. Badoual C, Maruani A, Ghorra C, et al. Pathological prognostic factors of invasive breast carcinoma in ultrasound‐guided large core biopsiescorrelation with subsequent surgical excisions. Breast 2005;14(1):22‐27. 7. Usami S, Moriya T, Kasajima A, et al. Pathological aspects of core needle biopsy for non‐palpable breast lesions. Breast Canc 2005;12(4):272‐278. 8. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 2007;60(12):1300‐1306. 9. Rougraff BT, Aboulafia A, Biermann JS, et al. Biopsy of soft tissue masses: evidence‐based medicine for the musculoskeletal tumor society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(11):2783‐2791. 10. Taplin SH, Abraham L, Geller BM, et al. Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive .performance of subsequent screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102(14): 1040‐1051. 11. van Breest Smallenburg V, Duijm LE, Voogd AC, et al. Lower sensitivity of screening mammography after previous benign breast surgery. Int J Cancer 2012;130(1):122‐128. 12. Crowe Jr JP, Rim A, Patrick R, et al. A prospective review of the decline of excisional breast biopsy. Am J Surg 2002;184(4):353‐355. 13. van Breest Smallenburg V, Nederend J, Voogd AC, et al. Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a populationbased study in The Netherlands. Br J Canc 2013;109(1):242‐248. 14. American College Radiology o. Breast imaging reporting and datesystem (BIRADS). fourth ed. American College of Radiology; 2003. 15. Sickles E, D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW. ACR BI‐RADS® mammography. ACR BI‐RADS® atlas, breast imaging Reporting and data System American College of radiology. 2013. 16. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, et al. Mammography screening in The Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Br J Canc 2004;91(10):1795‐1799. 17. Setz‐Pels W, Duijm LE, Coebergh JW, et al. Re‐attendance after false‐positive screening mammography: a population‐based study in The Netherlands. Br J Canc 2013;109(8):2044‐2050. 18. Calhoun BC, Collie AM, Lott‐Limbach AA, et al. Lobular neoplasia diagnosed on breast Core biopsy: frequency of carcinoma on excision and implications for management. Ann Diagn Pathol 2016;25:20‐25. 19. K€os¸ üs¸ NK€os¸ üs¸ A, Duran M, et al. Comparison of standard mammography with digital mammography and digital infrared thermal imaging for breast cancer screening. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2010;11(3):152‐157. 20. Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, et al. 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. 21. Calhoun BC. Core needle biopsy of the breast: an evaluation of contemporary data. Surg Pathol Clin 2018;11(1):1‐16.