Sénologie – Cancers infra-centimétriques - Cabinet Dr.Goumot

484 B. MESUROLLE ET COLLABORATEURS
CONCLUSION
Quelques certitudes doivent nous guider :
— Plus petite est la tumeur, plus facile est la guérison.
— La recherche du cancer du sein reste clinique, échographique
et mammographique.
— Les performances de l’imagerie permettent de
détecter des signaux de plus en plus petits. La tâche du
radiologue n’en est pas plus facile : au contraire, le travail
de l’image devient plus nécessaire que jamais (temps « lecture
» augmenté).
— Certains cancers restent invisibles en imagerie : une
bonne connaissance clinique est nécessaire.
— L’échographie doit détecter, mais aussi caractériser
de manière rigoureuse un élément solide (forme, grand axe,
contours, tissu avoisinant).
Références
1. Ries L, Kosary C, Hankey B et al. SEER Cancer statistics review,
1973-1996. Bethesda, MD, National Cancer Institute, 1996.
2. Frost AR, Terahata S, Yeh I-T, Siegel RS, Overmoyer B, Silverberg
SG. An analysis of prognostic features in infiltrating lobular
carcinoma of the breast. Mod Pathol, 1995; 18: 830-6.
3. Reintgen D, Berman C, Cox C, Baekey P, Nicosia S, Greenberg H,
Bush C, Lyman GH, Clark RA. The anatomy of missed breast cancers.
Sur Oncol, 1993; 2: 65-75.
4. Blamey RW. The role of the radiologist in breast diagnosis. Clinical
Radiology, 1999; 54: 77-8.
5. Gabriel H, Wilson TE, Helvie MA. Breast cancer in women 65-74
years old: earlier detection by mammographic screning. AJR,
1997; 168: 23-7.
6. Haus AG, Gray JE, Daly TR Evaluation of mammographic viewbox
luminance, illuminance, and color. Med Phys, 1993; 20: 819-
21.
7. Wang J, Gray JE. Detection of small low-contrast objects in mammography:
effect of viewbox masking and luminance. AJR, 1998;
170: 105-8.
8. Kopans DB, Swan CA, White G, McCarthy KA, Hall DA,
Belmonte SJ, Gallagher W. Asymetric breast tissue. Radiology,
1989; 171: 639-43.
9. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and
Data System (BI-RADS), 2nd ed. Reston, VA: American College
of Radiology, 1995.
10. Sala E, Salomon L, R Warren, J McCann, Duffy S, Luben R, Day
N. Size, node status and grade of breast tumours: association with
mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur Radiol, 2000; 10: 157-
61.
11. Georgen SK, Evans J, Cohen GPB, MacMillan JH. Characteristics
of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. Radiology,
1997; 204: 131-5.
12. Douglas-Jones AG, Pace DP. Pathology of R4 spiculated lesions
in the breast screening programme. Histopathology, 1997; 30:
214-20.
13. Sickles EA. Breast imaging: from 1965 to the present. Radiology,
2000; 215: 1-16.
14. Moskowitz M. The predictive value of certain mammographic
signs in screening for breast cancer. Cancer, 1983; 1007.
15. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M.
Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance
and diagnostic workup. AJR, 1999; 173: 921-7.
16. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with
dense breasts: detection with screening US-Diagnostic yield and
tumor characteristics. Radiology, 1998; 207: 191-9.
17. Michelin J, Levy L. Échographie du sein diagnostique et interventionnelle.
Paris : Éd Masson, 1999.
18. Stavros AC, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH,
Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish
between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology, 1995; 196: 123-
34.
19. Skaane P, Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation
of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR,
1998; 170: 109-14.
20. Maestro C, Cazenave F, Marcy PY, Bruneton JN, Chauvel C,
Bleuse A. Systematic ultrasonography in asymptomatic dense
breasts. Eur J Radiol, 1998; 26: 254-6.
21. Cleverley JR, Jackson AR, Bateman AC. Pre-operative localization
of breast microcalcification using high-frequency ultrasound.
Clin Radiol, 1997; 52: 924-6.
22. Moon WK, Im JG, Koh YH, Noh DY, Park IA. US of mammographically
detected clustered microcalcifications. Radiology,
2000; 217: 849-54.
23. Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, Norton L. Factors influencing
prognosis in node-negative breast carcinoma: analysis of 767
T1N0M0/T2N0M0 patients with long-term follow-up. J Clin
Oncol, 1993; 11: 2090-100.
24. Mann GB, Rush Port E, Rizza C, Tan LK, Borgen PI, Van Zee KJ.
Six-year follow-up of patients with microinvasive, T1a, and T1b
breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol, 1999; 6: 591-8.
25. Tabar L, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, Dean PB,
Smith RA. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome
of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14mm invasive breast cancers: a
prospective study. Lancet, 2000; 355: 429-33.
26. Lee AKC, Loda M, Mackarem G, Bosari S, DeLellis RA, Heatley GJ,
Hughes K. Lymph node negative invasive breast carcinoma 1 centimeter
or less in size (T1a, bN0M0). Clinical features and outcome.
Cancer, 1997; 79: 761-71.
27. Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P. The effect of silicone-gelfilled
implants on mammography. Cancer, 1991; 68: 1159-63.
28. Tristant H, Hazebroucq V, Lucidarme O. Lésions infracliniques et
prothèses mammaires. Étude de 30 cancers sur prothèses. Le Sein,
1999 ; 9 : 237-46.
29. Sheppard DG, Whitman GJ, Huynh PT, Sahin AA, Fornage BD,
Stelling CB. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and
sonographic features. AJR, 2000; 174: 253-7.
30. Mitnick JS, Gianutsos R, Pollack AH, Susman M, Baskin BL,
Ko WD, Pressman PI, Feiner HD, Roses DF. Tubular carcinoma
of the breast: sensitivity of diagnostic techniques and correlation
with histopathology. AJR, Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 319-23.
31. Paramagul CP, Helvie MA, Adler DD. Invasive lobular carcinoma:
sonographic appearance and role of sonography in improving
diagnostic sensitivity. Radiology, 1995; 195: 231-4.
32. Evans N, Lyons K. The use of ultrasound in the diagnosis of invasive
lobular carcinoma of the breast less than 10mm in size. Clinical
Radiology, 2000; 55: 261-3.
33. Skaane P, Skjorten F. Ultrasonographic evaluation of invasive
lobular carcinoma. Acta Radiol, 1999; 40: 369-75.