The Experts below are selected from a list of 4446 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Thomas H Helbich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • mammography in combination with Breast Ultrasonography versus mammography for Breast cancer screening in women at average risk
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013
    Co-Authors: Gerald Gartlehner, Kylie Thaler, Andrea Chapman, Angela Kaminskihartenthaler, Dominik Berzaczy, Megan Van Noord, Thomas H Helbich
    Abstract:

    Background Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect Breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged Breasts. In radiographically dense Breasts, non-calcified Breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty Breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct Ultrasonography to the screening regimen for Breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental Ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. Objectives To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with Breast Ultrasonography versus mammography for Breast cancer screening for women at average risk of Breast cancer. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (via OvidSP) and EMBASE up until February 2012. To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute's clinical trial database until June 2012. In addition, we conducted grey literature searches using the following sources: OpenGrey; National Institute of Health RePORTER; Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRPROJ); Hayes, Inc. Health Technology Assessment; The New York Academy of Medicine’s Grey Literature Index and Conference Papers Index. Selection criteria For efficacy, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with either individual or cluster randomisation, and prospective, controlled non-randomised studies with a low risk of bias and a sample size of at least 500 participants. In addition to studies eligible for efficacy, we considered any controlled, non-randomised study with a low risk of bias and a study size of at least 500 participants for the assessment of harms. Our population of interest were women between the ages of 40 and 75 years who were at average risk for Breast cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. None of the studies met our inclusion criteria. Main results Our review did not detect any controlled studies on the use of adjunct Ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for Breast cancer. One ongoing randomised controlled trial was identified (J-START, Japan). Authors' conclusions Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available justifying the routine use of Ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for Breast cancer.

  • The Cochrane Library - Mammography in combination with Breast Ultrasonography versus mammography for Breast cancer screening in women at average risk
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013
    Co-Authors: Gerald Gartlehner, Kylie Thaler, Andrea Chapman, Dominik Berzaczy, Megan Van Noord, Angela Kaminski-hartenthaler, Thomas H Helbich
    Abstract:

    Background Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect Breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged Breasts. In radiographically dense Breasts, non-calcified Breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty Breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct Ultrasonography to the screening regimen for Breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental Ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. Objectives To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with Breast Ultrasonography versus mammography for Breast cancer screening for women at average risk of Breast cancer. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (via OvidSP) and EMBASE up until February 2012. To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute's clinical trial database until June 2012. In addition, we conducted grey literature searches using the following sources: OpenGrey; National Institute of Health RePORTER; Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRPROJ); Hayes, Inc. Health Technology Assessment; The New York Academy of Medicine’s Grey Literature Index and Conference Papers Index. Selection criteria For efficacy, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with either individual or cluster randomisation, and prospective, controlled non-randomised studies with a low risk of bias and a sample size of at least 500 participants. In addition to studies eligible for efficacy, we considered any controlled, non-randomised study with a low risk of bias and a study size of at least 500 participants for the assessment of harms. Our population of interest were women between the ages of 40 and 75 years who were at average risk for Breast cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. None of the studies met our inclusion criteria. Main results Our review did not detect any controlled studies on the use of adjunct Ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for Breast cancer. One ongoing randomised controlled trial was identified (J-START, Japan). Authors' conclusions Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available justifying the routine use of Ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for Breast cancer.

Risa B. Burns - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Gerald Gartlehner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • mammography in combination with Breast Ultrasonography versus mammography for Breast cancer screening in women at average risk
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013
    Co-Authors: Gerald Gartlehner, Kylie Thaler, Andrea Chapman, Angela Kaminskihartenthaler, Dominik Berzaczy, Megan Van Noord, Thomas H Helbich
    Abstract:

    Background Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect Breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged Breasts. In radiographically dense Breasts, non-calcified Breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty Breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct Ultrasonography to the screening regimen for Breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental Ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. Objectives To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with Breast Ultrasonography versus mammography for Breast cancer screening for women at average risk of Breast cancer. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (via OvidSP) and EMBASE up until February 2012. To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute's clinical trial database until June 2012. In addition, we conducted grey literature searches using the following sources: OpenGrey; National Institute of Health RePORTER; Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRPROJ); Hayes, Inc. Health Technology Assessment; The New York Academy of Medicine’s Grey Literature Index and Conference Papers Index. Selection criteria For efficacy, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with either individual or cluster randomisation, and prospective, controlled non-randomised studies with a low risk of bias and a sample size of at least 500 participants. In addition to studies eligible for efficacy, we considered any controlled, non-randomised study with a low risk of bias and a study size of at least 500 participants for the assessment of harms. Our population of interest were women between the ages of 40 and 75 years who were at average risk for Breast cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. None of the studies met our inclusion criteria. Main results Our review did not detect any controlled studies on the use of adjunct Ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for Breast cancer. One ongoing randomised controlled trial was identified (J-START, Japan). Authors' conclusions Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available justifying the routine use of Ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for Breast cancer.

  • The Cochrane Library - Mammography in combination with Breast Ultrasonography versus mammography for Breast cancer screening in women at average risk
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013
    Co-Authors: Gerald Gartlehner, Kylie Thaler, Andrea Chapman, Dominik Berzaczy, Megan Van Noord, Angela Kaminski-hartenthaler, Thomas H Helbich
    Abstract:

    Background Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect Breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged Breasts. In radiographically dense Breasts, non-calcified Breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty Breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct Ultrasonography to the screening regimen for Breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental Ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. Objectives To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with Breast Ultrasonography versus mammography for Breast cancer screening for women at average risk of Breast cancer. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (via OvidSP) and EMBASE up until February 2012. To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute's clinical trial database until June 2012. In addition, we conducted grey literature searches using the following sources: OpenGrey; National Institute of Health RePORTER; Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRPROJ); Hayes, Inc. Health Technology Assessment; The New York Academy of Medicine’s Grey Literature Index and Conference Papers Index. Selection criteria For efficacy, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with either individual or cluster randomisation, and prospective, controlled non-randomised studies with a low risk of bias and a sample size of at least 500 participants. In addition to studies eligible for efficacy, we considered any controlled, non-randomised study with a low risk of bias and a study size of at least 500 participants for the assessment of harms. Our population of interest were women between the ages of 40 and 75 years who were at average risk for Breast cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. None of the studies met our inclusion criteria. Main results Our review did not detect any controlled studies on the use of adjunct Ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for Breast cancer. One ongoing randomised controlled trial was identified (J-START, Japan). Authors' conclusions Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available justifying the routine use of Ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for Breast cancer.

Eisuke Fukuma - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Matthias W. Beckmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Influence of mammographic density on the diagnostic accuracy of tumor size assessment and association with Breast cancer tumor characteristics.
    European journal of radiology, 2006
    Co-Authors: Peter A. Fasching, Katharina Heusinger, Christian R. Loehberg, Evelyn Wenkel, Michael P. Lux, Michael G. Schrauder, Thomas Koscheck, Werner Bautz, Rüdiger Schulz-wendtland, Matthias W. Beckmann
    Abstract:

    Abstract Purpose The accuracy of Breast cancer staging involves the estimation of the tumor size for the initial decision-making in the treatment. We investigated the accuracy of tumor size estimation and the association between tumor characteristics and Breast density (BD). Materials and methods A total of 434 women with a primary diagnosis of Breast cancer were included in this prospective study at a specialist Breast unit. Estimated tumor characteristics included tumor size, nodal status, estrogen/progesterone receptor status, Ki-67, HER2/neu , vascular invasion. Radiomorphological data included tumor size as assessed by mammography, Breast Ultrasonography, and clinical examination, and American College of Radiology (ACR) categories for BD. Results BD did not have a significant impact on the assessment of tumor size using Breast ultrasound (deviation from ACR categories 1–4: 0.55–0.68 cm; P  = 0.331). The deviation in mammography was significantly different dependent on BD (0.42–0.9 cm; P  2 cm). Conclusion Breast Ultrasonography is more accurate than mammography for assessing tumor size in Breasts with a higher BD. The difference in tumor size assessment needs to be taken into consideration in the design of clinical trials and treatment decisions.