Causes of inconsistency in diagnosing and classifying intraductal proliferations of the breast
- 1 September 2000
- journal article
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal Of Cancer
- Vol. 36 (14) , 1769-1772
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00181-7
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ*1, *2Human Pathology, 1999
- Prediction of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five histological classifications: A comparative study with long follow-upHuman Pathology, 1998
- Statewide Study of Diagnostic Agreement in Breast PathologyJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1998
- A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): correlation with grade of associated invasive carcinomaHistopathology, 1996
- Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situThe Lancet, 1995
- Consistency of histopathological reporting of breast lesions detected by screening: Findings of the U.K. National External Quality Assessment (EQA) schemeEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 1994
- Interobserver Reproducibility in the Diagnosis of Ductal Proliferative Breast Lesions Using Standardized CriteriaThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 1992
- Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasiaHuman Pathology, 1992
- Borderline Epithelial Lesions of the BreastThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 1991
- Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Women with Proliferative Breast DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 1985