The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Saving Women’s Lives: Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis
47. Julien JP, Bijker N, Fentiman IS, Peterse JL, Delledonne V, Rouanet P, Avril A, Sylvester R, Mignolet F, Bartelink H, Van Dongen JA. 2000. Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853. EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. Lancet 355(9203):528-533.
48. Jung H. 2001. Is there a real risk of radiation-induced breast cancer for postmenopausal women? Radiat Environ Biophys 40(2):169-174.
49. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, Ernster V. 1998. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(23):1801-1809.
50. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, Ljung B-M, Ernster VL, Stewart K, Chew K, Moore D2, Waldman F. 2003. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(22):1692-1702.
51. Kessar P, Perry N, Vinnicombe SJ, Hussain HK, Carpenter R, Wells CA. 2002. How significant is detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme? Clin Radiol 57(9):807-814.
52. Kestin LL, Goldstein NS, Martinez AA, Rebner M, Balasubramaniam M, Frazier RC, Register JT, Pettinga J, Vicini FA. 2000. Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ treated with conservative surgery with or without radiation therapy: patterns of failure and 10-year results. Ann Surg 231(2):235-245.
53. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. 2002. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225(1):165-175.
54. Kopans DB. 2003. Re: Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(6):487; author reply 487-488.
55. Kornguth PJ, Keefe FJ, Conaway MR. 1996. Pain during mammography: characteristics and relationship to demographic and medical variables. Pain 66(2-3):187-194.
56. Kote-Jarai Z, Eeles RA. 1999. BRCA1, BRCA2 and their possible function in DNA damage response. Br J Cancer 81(7):1099-1102.
57. Lagios MD. 1990. Duct carcinoma in situ. Pathology and treatment. Surg Clin North Am 70(4):853-871.
58. Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, Rose MR. 1989. Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer 63(4):618-624.
59. Land CE, Tokunaga M, Koyama K, Soda M, Preston DL, Nishimori I, Tokuoka S. 2003. Incidence of female breast cancer among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1950-1990. Radiat Res 160(6):707-717.
60. Law J, Faulkner K. 2001. Cancers detected and induced, and associated risk and benefit, in a breast screening programme. Br J Radiol 74(888):1121-1127.
61. Li CI, Anderson BO, Daling JR, Moe RE. 2003. Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA 289(11):1421-1424.
62. Liberman L. 2000. Ductal carcinoma in situ: Percutaneous biopsy considerations. Semin Breast Dis 3:14-25.
63. Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E. 1996. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ 312(7026):273-276.
64. Liu E, Thor A, He M, Barcos M, Ljung BM, Benz C. 1992. The HER2 (c-erbB-2) oncogene is frequently amplified in in situ carcinomas of the breast. Oncogene 7(5):1027-1032.