Jacky Luiten

Recall and outcome of screen ‐ detected microcalcifications of mammography screening | 83 5 19. Knol MJ, Pestman WR, Grobbee DE. The (mis)use of overlap of confidence intervals to assess effect modification. Eur J Epidemiol 2011;26(4):253–254. 20. Mikhail RA, Nathan RC, Weiss M, et al. Stereotactic core needle biopsy of mammographic breast lesions as a viable alternative to surgical biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 1994;1(5):363–367. 21. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Cohen MA, Hann LE, Abramson AF. Stereotaxic core biopsy of impalpable spiculated breast masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165(3):551–554. 22. Meyer JE, Smith DN, Lester SC, et al. Large ‐ core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. JAMA 1999;281(17):1638–1641. 23. 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. 24. 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 Cancer 2013;109(1):242–248. 25. Sala M, Domingo L, Macià F, Comas M, Burón A, Castells X. Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization. Eur Radiol 2015;25(3):850–859. 26. 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. 27. Li T, Marinovich ML, Houssami N. Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for breast cancer screening and for assessment of screen ‐ recalled findings: review of the evidence. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2018;18(8):785–791. 28. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, et al. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open ‐ label, international multicentre, phase III, non ‐ inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ ‐ The LORD study. Eur J Cancer 2015;51(12):1497–1510. 29. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer 2015;51(16):2296–2303. 30. Szynglarewicz B, Kasprzak P, Biecek P, Halon A, Matkowski R. Screendetected ductal carcinoma in situ found on stereotactic vacuum ‐ assisted biopsy of suspicious microcalcifications without mass: radiological ‐ histological correlation. Radiol Oncol 2016;50(2):145–152. 31. Evans A, Clements K, Maxwell A, et al. Lesion size is a major determinant of the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the Sloane project. Clin Radiol 2010;65(3): 181 ‐ 184. 32. Tang X, Yamashita T, Hara M, Kumaki N, Tokuda Y, Masuda S. Histopathological characteristics of breast ductal carcinoma in situ and association with imaging findings. Breast Cancer 2016; 23(3):491–498. 33. Richtlijn mammacarcinoom. Federatie Medisch Specialisten. https://richtlijnendatabase. nl/richtlijn/borstkanker/dcis.html. Published January 7, 2018. Accessed June 12, 2018. 34. Dubrovsky E, Nguyen P, Chun J, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ on core needle biopsy only with no residual disease at surgery. Breast J 2018;24(6):971–975. 35. Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EA, Comstock C, et al. First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016;159(2): 203–213. 36. Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EAM, Pinker K, et al. Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019;174(2): 279–296 [Published correction appears in Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019;176(2):481–482.].