González-Vergara C

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 22
Paginas: 89-92
Archivo PDF: 72.50 Kb.

RESUMEN

Se presenta la diversidad de métodos al alcance en nuestro medio para efectuar biopsias percutáneas guiadas y técnicas de localización preoperatoria de lesiones mamarias acorde con los preceptos establecidos por el Colegio Americano de Radiología previa clasificación de las lesiones de acuerdo a BI-RADS.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Sickles E. Breast Imaging: From 1965 to the Present. Radiology 2000; 215: 1-16. RSNA 2000.

2. Morrow M. The certainities and the uncertainities of ductal carcinoma in situ. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004; 90(6): 424-425.

3. Compendio de Cáncer 2000. Secretaría de Salud. México.

4. Orel S, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan D. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1992; 211: 845-850.

5. Taplin S, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K et al. Concordance of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222: 529-535.

6. Berg W, Campassi C et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Inter-and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR 2000; 174: 1769-1777.

7. Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: Concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. AJR 2002; 179: 15-20.

8. Geller B, Barlow W, Ballard-Barbash R et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 2002; 222: 536-542.

9. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179: 463-468.

10. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184: 409-414.

11. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subject to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002; 223: 221-223.

12. Hall FM. Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions. Radiology 2002; 225: 918-920.

13. Radiology Info. The Radiology information resource for patients. Radiological Society of North America, Inc. April 2004.

14. March D, Coughlin B, Barhan R et al. Breast masses: Removal of all US evidence during biopsy by using a handheld vacuum-assisted device-initial experience. Radiology 2003; 227: 549-555.

15. Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun. Radiology 1990; 176: 741-747.

16. Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA et al. US guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 1993; 187: 507-511.

17. Burbank F, Parker SH, Fogarty TJ. Stereotactic breast biopsy: improved tissue harvesting with the mammotome. Am Surg 1996; 63: 738-744.

18. Lee C, Carter D, Philpotts LE et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with stereotactic core needle biopsy: Can invasion be predicted? Radiology 2002; 217: 466-470.

19. Fishman JE, Milikowsky C et al. US-guided corre-needle biopsy of the breast: How many specimens are necessary? Radiology 2003; 226: 779-782.

20. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL, Thuy TV. Sonographically guided biopsy of suspicious microcalcifications of the breast. AJR 2002; 178: 1007-1015.

21. Liberman L, Kaplan J et al. Bracketing wires for preoperative breast needle localization. AJR 2000; 177: 565-572.

22. Lo J, Markey M, Baker J, Floyd C Jr. Cross institutional evaluation of BI-RADS predictive model for mammographic diagnosis of breast cancer. AJR 2002; 178: 457-463.