Durand MA, Wang S, Hooley RJ, Raghu M, Philpotts LE (2016) Tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion: management algorithm with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 36(2):311–321
Pujara AC, Hui J, Wang LC (2019) Architectural distortion in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes and implications for management. Clin Imaging 54:133–137
Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277(3):663
Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast J 22(2):101–108
Dhamija E, Gulati M, Deo SV, Gogia A, Hari S (2021) Digital breast tomosynthesis: an overview. Indian J Surg Oncol 12(2):315–329
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN (2015) Suspicious findings at digital breast tomosynthesis occult to conventional digital mammography: imaging features and pathology findings. Breast J 21:538–542
Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EA, Comstock C et al (2016) First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat 159(2):203–13
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Rao AA, Feneis J, Lalonde C, Ojeda-Fournier H (2016) A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. Radiographics 36(3):623–39
Wadhwa A, Majidi SS, Cherian S et al (2021) Architectural distortion on screening digital breast tomosynthesis: pathologic outcomes and indicators of malignancy. J Breast Imaging 3(1):34–43
Bahl M, Lamb LR, Lehman CD (2017) Pathologic outcomes of architectural distortion on digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:1162–1167
Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV (2015) Architectural distortion on mammography: correlation with pathologic outcomes and predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1339–2134
Linda A, Tarricone R, Londero V, Girometti R, Zuiani C (2022) Pathological outcome of sonographically occult architectural distortions (AD) visible only on digital breast tomosynthesis, and comparison with AD visible also on 2D mammography. Eur J Radiol 146:110075
Freer PE, Niell B, Rafferty EA (2015) Preoperative tomosynthesis-guided needle localization of mammographically and sonographically occult breast lesions. Radiology 275(2):377–383
Alshafeiy TI, Nguyen JV, Rochman CM, Nicholson BT, Patrie JT, Harvey JA (2018) Outcome of architectural distortion detected only at breast tomosynthesis versus 2D mammography. Radiology 288:38–46
Walcott-Sapp S, Garreau J, Johnson N, Thomas KA (2019) Pathology results of architectural distortion on detected with digital breast tomosynthesis without definite sonographic correlate. Am J Surg 217:857–861
Vijapura C, Yang L, Xiong J, Fajardo LL (2018) Imaging features of nonmalignant and malignant architectural distortion detected by tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211(6):1397–1404
Sohn V, Arthurs Z, Herbert G et al (2007) Atypical ductal hyperplasia: improved accuracy with the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted versus the 14-gauge core biopsy needle. Ann Surg Oncol 14:2497–2501
Williams KE, Amin A, Hill J et al (2019) Radiologic and pathologic features associated with upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia at surgical excision. Acad Radiol 26:893–899
Villa-Camacho JC, Bahl M (2022) Management of architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis with nonmalignant pathology at biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 219(1):46–54
Yan P, DeMello L, Baird GL, Lourenco AP (2021) Malignancy upgrade rates of radial sclerosing lesions at breast cancer screening. Radiol Imaging Cancer 3(6):e210036
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Vijayaraghavan GR, Newburg A, Vedantham S (2019) Positive predictive value of tomosynthesis-guided biopsies of architectural distortions seen on digital breast tomosynthesis and without an ultrasound correlate. J Clin Imaging Sci 9(53):23
留言 (0)