European Journal of Radiology
Volume 54, Issue 1 , Pages 72-79 , April 2005

Dynamic optical breast imaging: A new technique to visualise breast vessels: Comparison with breast MRI and preliminary results

  • Alexandra Athanasiou

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
    • ,
  • Daniel Vanel

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +33 142 114873; fax: +33 142 115279.
    • ,
  • Corinne Balleyguier

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
    • ,
  • Laure Fournier

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
    • ,
  • Marie Christine Mathieu

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
    • ,
  • Suzette Delaloge

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
    • ,
  • Clarisse Dromain

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France

Received 22 November 2004 ,Revised 26 November 2004 ,Accepted 29 November 2004.

References 

  1. Mitchell G, Eeles R. Incidence and aetiology of breast cancer. International handbook of cancer. Euromed Communications Ltd.; 2002.
  2. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51:15–36
  3. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001;91:1724–1731
  4. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 2001;358:1340–1342
  5. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:344–6.
  6. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, et al. The visibility of cancer on earlier mammograms in a population-based screening programme. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1118–1122
  7. Warner E, Lockwood G, Tritchler D, et al. The risk of breast cancer associated with mammographic parenchymal patterns: a meta-analysis of the published literature to examine the effect of method of classification. Cancer Detect Prev. 1992;16:67–72
  8. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Ronetgenol. 2002;179:671–677
  9. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995;273:149–154
  10. NCI statement on mammography screening. Office of Communications/Mass Media Branch. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 21 February 2002.
  11. Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening outcomes in women ages 40–49: clinical experience with service screening using modern mammography. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;22:99–104
  12. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Computer-aided diagnosis in full-field digital mammography: a prospective study of 12, 680 patients in a community breast center. Radiology. 2000;217:400
  13. Kuhl KC, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Surveillance of ‘high risk’ women with proven or suspected familial (hereditary) breast cancer: first mid-term results of a multi-modality clinical screening trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(Suppl. 23):238
  14. Smith JA, Andreopoulou E. An overview of the status of imaging screening technology for breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2004;15(Suppl. 1):18–26

PII: S0720-048X(05)00026-4

doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.11.022

European Journal of Radiology
Volume 54, Issue 1 , Pages 72-79 , April 2005

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution