Jacky Luiten

82 | Chapter 5 References 1. Knipe H, Kruger G. Albert Salomon. http://radiopaedia.org/articles/dralbert ‐ salomon ‐ 1. Accessed April 2019. 2. Castronovo V, Bellahcene A. Evi dence that breast cancer associated m icrocalcifications are mineralized malignant cells. Int J Oncol 1998;12(2):305–308. 3. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al. Full ‐ field digital versus screenfilm mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(4): 860 ‐ 866. 4. Morgan MP, Cooke MM, McCarthy GM. Microcalcifications associated with breast cancer: an epiphenomenon or biologically significant feature of selected tumors? J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2005;10(2):181–187. 5. Rauch GM, Hobbs BP, Kuerer HM, et al. Microcalcifications in 1657 patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation with clinical, histopathologic, biologic features, and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23(2):482–489. 6. Hofvind S, Iversen BF, Eriksen L, Styr BM, Kjellevold K, Kurz KD. Mammographic morphology and distribution of calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in organized screening. Acta Radiol 2011;52(5):481–487. 7. van Steenbergen LN, Voogd AC, Roukema JA, et al. Screening caused rising incidence rates of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;115(1):181–183. 8. Hong YK, McMasters KM, Egger ME, Ajkay N. Ductal carcinoma in situ current trends, controversies, and review of literature. Am J Surg 2018;216(5):998–1003. 9. Luiten JD, Voogd AC, Luiten EJT, Duijm LEM. Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen ‐ detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;166(1):307–314. 10. Luiten JD, Voogd AC, Tjan ‐ Heijnen VCG, Wesseling J, Luiten EJT, Duijm LEM. Utility of diagnostic breast excision biopsies during two decades of screening mammography. Breast 2019;46:157– 162. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.05.018. 11. van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ; National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in Netherlands Study Group (NETB). 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. 12. Jing H, Yang Y, Wernick MN, Yarusso LM, Nishikawa RM. A comparison study of image features between FFDM and film mammogram images. Med Phys 2012;39(7):4386–4394. 13. Setz ‐ Pels W, Duijm LE, Coebergh JW, Rutten M, Nederend J, Voogd AC. Re ‐ attendance after false ‐ positive screening mammography: a populationbased study in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2013;109(8):2044–2050. 14. 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. 15. BI ‐ RADS Committee. ACR BI ‐ RADS atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System. 5th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2013. 16. Timmers JM, van Doorne ‐ Nagtegaal HJ, Zonderland HM, et al. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI ‐ RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool. Eur Radiol 2012;22(8):1717–1723. 17. 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(3): 391 ‐ 399. 18. van Bommel RMG, Voogd AC, Nederend J, et al. Incidence and tumour characteristics of bilateral and unilateral interval breast cancers at screening mammography. Breast 2018;38:101–106.