Jacky Luiten

62 | Chapter 4 References 1. Dowling EC, Klabunde C, Patnick J, et al. Breast and cervical cancer screening programme implementation in 16 countries. J Med Screen 2010;17:139–146. 2. Sankatsing VDV, van Ravesteyn NT, Heijnsdijk EAM, et al. The effect of populationbased mammography screening in Dutch municipalities on breast cancer mortality: 20 years of follow‐ up. Int J Cancer 2017;141:671–677. 3. Neal L, Sandhu NP, Hieken TJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of benign, atypical, and indeterminate breast lesions detected on core needle biopsy. Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89:536–547. 4. Calhoun BC. Core needle biopsy of the breast: an evaluation of contemporary data. Surg Pathol Clin 2018;11:1–16. 5. Falomo E, Adejumo C, Carson KA, et al. Variability in the management recommendations given for high‐risk breast lesions detected on imageguided Core needle biopsy at U.S. academic institutions. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2019;48(5):462‐466. 6. Gao Y, Albert M, Young Lin LL, et al. What happens after a diagnosis of high‐risk breast lesion at stereotactic vacuum‐assisted biopsy? An observational study of postdiagnosis management and imaging adherence. Radiology 2018;287:423–431. 7. Weber RJ, Nederend J, Voogd AC, et al. Screening outcome and surgical treatment during and after the transition from screen‐film to digital screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands. Int J Cancer 2015;137:135–143. 8. Klompenhouwer EG, Voogd AC, den Heeten GJ, et al. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non‐blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 2015;51: 391‐399. 9. BI‐RADS Committee. ACR BI‐RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013. 10. BI‐RADS Committee. ACR BI‐RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system, 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003. 11. Verschuur‐Maes AH, van Gils CH, van den Bosch MA, et al. Digital mammography: more microcalcifications, more columnar cell lesions without atypia. Mod Pathol 2011;24:1191–1197. 12. Reisch LM, Carney PA, Oster NV, et al. Medical malpractice concerns and defensive medicine: a nationwide survey of breast pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 2015;144:916–922. 13. Pareja F, Corben AD, Brennan SB, et al. Breast intraductal papillomas without atypia in radiologic‐ pathologic concordant core‐needle biopsies: rate of upgrade to carcinoma at excision. Cancer 2016;122:2819–2827. 14. Grimm LJ, Bookhout CE, Bentley RC, et al. Concordant, non‐atypical breast papillomas do not require surgical excision: a 10‐year multiinstitution study and review of the literature. Clin Imaging 2018;51:180–185. 15. Shiino S, Tsuda H, Yoshida M, et al. Intraductal papillomas on core biopsy can be upgraded to malignancy on subsequent excisional biopsy regardless of the presence of atypical features. Pathol Int 2015;65:293–300. 16. Shah‐Khan MG, Geiger XJ, Reynolds C, et al. Long‐term follow‐up of lobular neoplasia (atypical lobular hyperplasia/lobular carcinoma in situ) diagnosed on core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:3131–3138. 17. Murray MP, Luedtke C, Liberman L, et al. Classic lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia at percutaneous breast core biopsy: outcomes of prospective excision. Cancer 2013;119:1073–1079. 18. Lourenco AP, Khalil H, Sanford M, et al. Highrisk lesions at MRI‐guided breast biopsy: frequency and rate of underestimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:682–686. 19. Heller SL, Elias K, Gupta A, et al. Outcome of high‐risk lesions at MRI‐guided 9‐gauge vacuumassisted breast biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:237–245.