Download PDF
Senologie - Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie 2024; 21(03): 187-190
DOI: 10.1055/a-2307-5005
Aktuell diskutiert

Postoperative Bildgebung – was ist erforderlich, was überflüssig?

Markus Müller-Schimpfle
,
Werner Bader
,
Maria Bernathova
,
Ulrich Bick
,
Michael H. Fuchsjäger
,
Michael Golatta 
,
Thomas Helbich
,
Sylvia H. Heywang-Köbrunner
,
Alexander Mundinger
,
Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland
,
Katja C. Siegmann-Luz
,
Christine Solbach
,
Stefanie Weigel
,
Evelyn Wenkel 
,
Petra Wunderlich
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Das seit 2007 in 2-jährlichem Intervall stattfindende Konsensustreffen von Kursleitenden in der Mammadiagnostik (KuKMa) konnte am 27.1.2024 (unter dem Titel „KuKMa24“) dank der exzellenten Unterstützung eines Online-Kursanbieters einem deutlicher interdisziplinären Teilnehmerkreis ermöglicht werden. Ziel war es, konsensfähige Antworten auf ungelöste Fragen in der postoperativen Bildgebung zu finden.

Publication History

Article published online:
13 September 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Müller-Schimpfle M. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 5.5.2007 in Frankfurt am Main – Thema: Mikrokalk. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2008; 180: 66-68
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Müller-Schimpfle MP, Heindel W, Kettritz U. et al. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 9.5.2009 in Frankfurt am Main – Thema Herdbefunde. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2010; 182: 1-5
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Müller-Schimpfle MP, Heindel W, Kettritz U. et al. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 7.5.2011 in Frankfurt am Main – Magnet-Resonanz-Tomografie der Mamma. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 913-918
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Müller-Schimpfle MP, Heindel W, Kettritz U. et al. Konsensustreffen der Kursleiter in der Mammadiagnostik am 04.05.2013 in Frankfurt am Main – Standards in Technik und Befundung. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 410-416
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Müller-Schimpfle M, Bick U, Hahn M. et al. Konsensustreffen Mammadiagnostik – Was hat Bestand von den neuen Standards?. Senologie 2017; 14: 78-81
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Müller-Schimpfle M, Bader W, Baltzer P. et al. Consensus Meeting of Breast Imaging: BI-RADS® and Beyond. Breast Care 2019; 14: 308-314
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Müller-Schimpfle M, BaderWBaltzer PAT. et al. Konsensustreffen Mammadiagnostik 2021: Online-Austausch unter Pandemie-Bedingungen. Senologie 2022; 19: 127-130
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Sia J, Moodie K, Bressel M. et al. A prospective study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography in surveillance after breast cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer 2016; 61: 122-127
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hasan S, Gresswell S, Colosimo B. et al. Surveillance Mammography After Breast Conservation Therapy: Is Tomosynthesis Worth It?. Am J Clin Oncol 2019; 42: 682-686
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gluskin J, Rossi Saccarelli C. et al. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Screening Women after Breast Conserving Surgery. Cancers 2020; 12: 3495
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Fischer U, Diekmann F, Helbich T. et al. Einsatz der kontrastmittelverstärkten Mammographie in der Brustkrebsdiagnostik [Use of contrast-enhanced mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer]. Radiologie 2023; 63: 916-924
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Glechner A, Wagner G, Mitus JW. et al. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 3: CD009632
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Evans A, Trimboli RM, Athanasiou A. European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition. et al. Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging. Insights Imaging 2018; 9: 449-461
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Marino MA, Avendano D, Zapata P. et al. Lymph Node Imaging in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer: Concurrent Diagnostic Tools. Oncologist 2020; 25: e231-e242
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Suh YJ, Kim MJ, Kim EK. et al. Value of ultrasound for postoperative surveillance of Asian patients with history of breast cancer surgery: a single-center study. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 3461-3468
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Tsai WC, Wei HK, Hung CF. et al. Better Overall Survival for Breast Cancer Patients by Adding Breast Ultrasound to Follow-Up Examinations for Early Detection of Locoregional Recurrence-A Survival Impact Study. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 2058-2064
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Yang L, Wang S, Zhang L. et al. Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2020; 20: 499
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Shah C, Ahlawat S, Khan A. et al. The Role of MRI in the Follow-up of Women Undergoing Breast-conserving Therapy. Am J Clin Oncol 2016; 39: 314-319
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Loibl S, André F, Bachelot T. et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2024; 35: 159-182 https://clinicalguidelines@esmo.org
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 De Rose F, Meduri B, De Santis MC. et al. Rethinking breast cancer follow-up based on individual risk and recurrence management. Cancer Treat Rev 2022; 109: 102434
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar