Current Treatment Options in Oncology

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 75–87 | Cite as

Is DCIS Breast Cancer, and How Do I Treat it?

  • N. BijkerEmail author
  • M. Donker
  • J. Wesseling
  • G. J. den Heeten
  • E. J. Th. Rutgers
Breast Cancer (CI Falkson, Section Editor)

Opinion statement

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a pre-invasive stage of breast cancer with a heterogeneous clinical behaviour. Since the introduction of mammographic screening programmes, the incidence of DCIS has shown a dramatic increase. Treatment should focus on the prevention of progression to invasive disease. If progression occurs, poorly differentiated DCIS frequently gives rise to grade III invasive breast cancer, whereas well differentiated DCIS more often recurs as grade I invasive disease. However, at present, validated diagnostic test are lacking to predict progression accurately. The majority of women with DCIS are suitable for breast conserving therapy. Obtaining clear surgical margins is the most important goal of a local excision. Radiotherapy is effective in reducing the risk of local recurrence with about 50 % in all subgroups of patients with DCIS. (Breast cancer specific) survival of women with DCIS is excellent, and radiotherapy does not further improve this. Future research should be directed in enabling to select women who have a high risk of—invasive—recurrence, so in which radiotherapy should be standard part of the breast conserving approach, and those women with a more indolent lesion, in which after surgery a watchful waiting approach can be followed.


Ductal carcinoma in situ DCIS Breast cancer Breast conserving therapy Surgery radiotherapy Mammogram MRI 



No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Bloodgood JC. Comedo carcinoma (or comedo-adenoma) of the female breast. Am J Cancer. 1934;22:842–53.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    MacCarty WC. Carcinoma of the breast. Transact South Surg Gynaecol Assoc. 1911;23:262–70.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broders AC. Carcinoma in situ contrasted with benign penetrating epithelium. JAMA. 1932;99:1670–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alpers CE, Wellings SR. The prevalence of carcinoma in situ in normal and cancer-associated breasts. Hum Pathol. 1985;16:796–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nielsen M. Autopsy studies of the occurrence of cancerous, atypical and benign epithelial lesions in the female breast. APMIS Suppl. 1989;10:1–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhathal PS, Brown RW, Lesueur GC, Russell IS. Frequency of benign and malignant breast lesions in 207 consecutive autopsies in Australian women. Br J Cancer. 1985;51:271–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:223–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Page DL. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer. 2005;103:2481–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:170–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1546–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dutch Cancer Registry hosted by IKNL ©: Incidence breast cancer/DCIS, Available at Accessed October 2012.
  12. 12.
    Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ. Comparison of Digital Screening Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the Early Detection of Clinically Relevant Cancers: A Multicenter Study. Radiology. 2012 Oct 2. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 23033499.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schopper D, de Wolf C. How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1916–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.•
    Broeders M, Moss S, Nystromm L, et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen. 2012;19:33–41.In this systematic review of observational studies investigating the impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality, a European estimate of breast cancer mortality reduction of 38-48 % for screened women was found.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quinn CM, Ostrowski JL. Cytological and architectural heterogeneity in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 1997;50:596–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tavassoli FA. Breast pathology: rationale for adopting the ductal intraepithelial neoplasia (DIN) classification. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005;2:116–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:167–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lampejo OT, Barnes DM, Smith P, Millis RR. Evaluation of infiltrating ductal carcinomas with a DCIS component: correlation of the histologic type of the in situ component with grade of the infiltrating component. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:215–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Millis RR, Barnes DM, Lampejo OT, et al. Tumour grade does not change between primary and recurrent mammary carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:548–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L, et al. Histological type and marker expression of the primary tumour compared with its local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:539–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zafrani B, Leroyer A, Fourquet A, et al. Mammographically-detected ductal in situ carcinoma of the breast analyzed with a new classification. A study of 127 cases: correlation with estrogen and progesterone receptors, p53 and c-erbB-2 proteins, and proliferative activity. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:208–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meijnen P, Peterse JL, Antonini N, et al. Immunohistochemical categorisation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:137–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van de Vijver MJ, Peterse JL, Mooi WJ, et al. Neu-protein overexpression in breast cancer. Association with comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ and limited prognostic value in stage II breast cancer N Engl J Med. 1988;319:1239–45.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bobrow LG, Happerfield LC, Gregory WM, et al. The classification of ductal carcinoma in situ and its association with biological markers. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:199–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clark SE, Warwick J, Carpenter R, et al. Molecular subtyping of DCIS: heterogeneity of breast cancer reflected in pre-invasive disease. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:120–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Solin LJ. A Quantitative Multigene RT-PCR Assay for Predicting Recurrence Risk after Surgical Excision Alone without Irradiation for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): A Prospective Validation Study of the DCIS Score from ECOG E5194 [abstract S4-6]. Presented at the 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bijker N, Rutgers EJ, Peterse JL, et al. Variations in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in a multicentre, randomized clinical trial (EORTC 10853) investigating breast-conserving treatment for DCIS. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001;27:135–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muller-Schimpfle M, Wersebe A, Xydeas T, et al. Microcalcifications of the breast: how does radiologic classification correlate with histology? Acta Radiol. 2005;46:774–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holland R, Hendriks JH, Vebeek AL, et al. Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 1990;335:519–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rice A, Quinn CM. Angiogenesis, thrombospondin, and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55:569–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.•
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370:485–92. In this large observational study the sensitivity of MRI in detecting DCIS is compared with that of mammography.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.•
    Schouten van der Velden AP, Schlooz-Vries MS, Boetes C, Wobbes T. Magnetic resonance imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ: what is its clinical application? A review. Am J Surg. 2009;198:262–9. In this review, the value but also the limitations of the role of MRI for DCIS are highlighted.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van der Heiden-van der Loo, de Munck L, Visser O, et al. Variation between hospitals in surgical margins after first breast-conserving surgery in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:691–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dixon JM, Ravisekar O, Cunningham M, et al. Factors affecting outcome of patients with impalpable breast cancer detected by breast screening. Br J Surg. 1996;83:997–1001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rampaul RS, Bagnall M, Burrell H, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing radioisotope occult lesion localization and wire-guided excision for biopsy of occult breast lesions. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1575–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.•
    Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH, Hodgson N, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3407–14. A randomized, controlled trial comparing ROLL with wire localization for nonpalpable breast cancers shows that the ROLL procedure is shorter, with less ranked pain for the patients while the rate of complete excisions is similar in the two groups.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Vora R et al. Systematic review of radioguided surgery for non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Emdin SO, Granstrand B, Ringberg A, et al. SweDCIS: radiotherapy after sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Results of a randomised trial in a population offered mammography screening. Acta Oncol. 2006;45:536–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853–a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3381–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA, et al. Salvage treatment for local or local-regional recurrence after initial breast conservation treatment with radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:1715–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.••
    Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:478–88. The NSABP B-17 is one of the randomized, clinical trials to investigate the role of radiotherapy in breast-conserving therapy for DCIS that published its results here with long-term follow-up of 207 months. It is a combined publication with the results of the NSABP B-24 trial, which analyzed the role of tamoxifen in BCT for DCIS.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zujewski JA, Harlan LC, Morrell DM, Stevens JL. Ductal carcinoma in situ: trends in treatment over time in the US. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:251–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leidenius M, Salmenkivi K, von Smitten K, Heikkila P. Tumour-positive sentinel node findings in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Surg Oncol. 2006;94:380–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moore KH, Sweeney KJ, Wilson ME, et al. Outcomes for women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ and a positive sentinel node: a multi-institutional audit. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2911–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Meijnen P, Oldenburg HS, Loo CE, et al. Risk of invasion and axillary lymph node metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core-needle biopsy. Br J Surg. 2007;94:952–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yen TW, Hunt KK, Ross MI, et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:516–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, et al. Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ? Analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:311–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:599–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Land SR, Kopec JA, Julian TB, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in sentinel node-negative adjuvant breast cancer patients receiving sentinel-node biopsy or axillary dissection: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project phase III protocol B-32. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3929–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ashikaga T, Krag DN, Land SR, et al. Morbidity results from the NSABP B-32 trial comparing sentinel lymph node dissection versus axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102:111–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang Z, Wu LC, Chen JQ. Sentinel lymph node biopsy compared with axillary lymph node dissection in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129:675–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Deurloo EE, Sriram JD, Teertstra HJ, et al. MRI of the breast in patients with DCIS to exclude the presence of invasive disease. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1504–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.•
    Grin A, Horne G, Ennis M, O'Malley FP. Measuring extent of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens: a comparison of 4 methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:31–7. This study shows that the serial sequential sampling method is the preferred method in accurately measuring extent of DCIS cases.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chadha M, Portenoy J, Boolbol SK, et al. Is there a role for postmastectomy radiation therapy in ductal carcinoma in situ? Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:423–520.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Silverstein MJ, Barth A, Poller DN, et al. Ten-year results comparing mastectomy to excision and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:1425–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kim JH, Tavassoli F, Haffty BG. Chest wall relapse after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a report of 10 cases with a review of the literature. Cancer J. 2006;12:92–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Martino S, et al. Outcome after invasive local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1367–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Romero L, Klein L, Ye W, et al. Outcome after invasive recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg. 2004;188:371–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lee LA, Silverstein MJ, Chung CT, et al. Breast cancer-specific mortality after invasive local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma-in-situ of the breast. Am J Surg. 2006;192:416–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Voogd AC, van Oost FJ, Rutgers EJ, et al. Long-term prognosis of patients with local recurrence after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:2637–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.•
    Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, Kell MR. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1615–20. A meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized clinical studies was performed to investigate the effect of margin status on the risk of recurrence in BCT with radiotherapy for DCIS. It was concluded that margins should be negative in BCT for DCIS. More specifically, a margin threshold of 2 mm seems to be as good as a larger margin width.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S, et al. The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1455–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sahoo S, Recant WM, Jaskowiak N, et al. Defining negative margins in DCIS patients treated with breast conservation therapy: the University of Chicago experience. Breast J. 2005;11:242–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA, et al. Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation: long-term outcome and prognostic significance of patient age and margin status. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:991–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.••
    Correa C, McGale P, Taylor C, et al. Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010:162–77. This paper presents the meta-analysis of randomized, clinical trials performed by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group investigating the effect of radiotherapy on the risk of recurrence in breast-conserving therapy for DCIS.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.••
    Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:21–9. The long-term results of the U.K. DCIS trial are presented in this paper. At a median follow-up of 12.7 years, the beneficial effect of radiotherapy in BCT to reduce the risk of local recurrence is confirmed and is shown that tamoxifen reduces both the reduction of the risk of ipsilateral DCIS recurrence and contralateral breast cancer.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Holmberg L, Garmo H, Granstrand B, et al. Absolute risk reductions for local recurrence after postoperative radiotherapy after sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1247–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Alvarado R, Lari SA, Roses RE et al.. Biology, treatment, and outcome in very young and older women with DCIS. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Vicini FA, Recht A. Age at diagnosis and outcome for women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ of the breast: a critical review of the literature. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2736–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Omlin A, Amichetti M, Azria D, et al. Boost radiotherapy in young women with ductal carcinoma in situ: a multicentre, retrospective study of the Rare Cancer Network. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:652–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.•
    Hughes LL, Wang M, Page DL, et al. Local excision alone without irradiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5319–24. The ECOG 5194 trial is the largest prospective, nonrandomized trial in which 670 women with DCIS were treated with breast-conserving surgery without radiotherapy. It shows that small low- or intermediate-grade DCIS excised with wide tumor-free margins have a LR risk of 6.1 % at 5 years. High-grade lesions did much worse with a 5-year LR risk of 15.3 %.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wong JS, Kaelin CM, Troyan SL, et al. Prospective study of wide excision alone for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1031–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881–10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3259–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Vaidya JS, Joseph DJ, Tobias JS, et al. Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2010;376:91–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Whelan TJ, Pignol JP, Levine MN, et al. Long-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:513–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bentzen SM, Agrawal RK, Aird EG, et al. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial A of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:331–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Bijker
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Donker
    • 2
  • J. Wesseling
    • 3
  • G. J. den Heeten
    • 4
  • E. J. Th. Rutgers
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Radiology/Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Academic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations