| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
EDUCATION EXHIBIT |
1 From the Department of Radiology, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, 401 N 12th St, Richmond, VA 23298. Recipient of a Certificate of Merit award and an Excellence in Design award for an education exhibit at the 2001 RSNA scientific assembly. Received April 22, 2002; revision requested May 23; final revision received April 25, 2003; accepted April 25. Address correspondence to E.S.d.P. (e-mail: esshawde@hsc.vcu.edu).
Mammography is the standard of reference for the detection of breast carcinoma, yet 10%–30% of breast cancers may be missed at mammography. Possible causes for missed breast cancers include dense parenchyma obscuring a lesion, poor positioning or technique, perception error, incorrect interpretation of a suspect finding, subtle features of malignancy, and slow growth of a lesion. Recent studies have emphasized the use of alternative imaging modalities to detect and diagnose breast carcinoma, including ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance imaging, and nuclear medicine studies. However, the radiologist can take a number of steps that will significantly enhance the accuracy of image interpretation at mammography and decrease the false-negative rate. These steps include performing diagnostic as well as screening mammography, reviewing clinical data and using US to help assess a palpable or mammographically detected mass, strictly adhering to positioning and technical requirements, being alert to subtle features of breast cancers, comparing recent images with earlier mammograms to look for subtle increases in lesion size, looking for additional lesions when one abnormality is seen, and judging a lesion by its most malignant features.
© RSNA, 2003
Index Terms: Breast neoplasms, 00.32 • Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.11 • Diagnostic radiology, observer performance
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Singh, S. Sethi, M. Raber, and L. A. Petersen Errors in Cancer Diagnosis: Current Understanding and Future Directions J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2007; 25(31): 5009 - 5018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A Karahaliou, S Skiadopoulos, I Boniatis, P Sakellaropoulos, E Likaki, G Panayiotakis, and L Costaridou Texture analysis of tissue surrounding microcalcifications on mammograms for breast cancer diagnosis Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2007; 80(956): 648 - 656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. C. Alexander, B. C. Yankaskas, and K. W. Biesemier Association of stellate mammographic pattern with survival in small invasive breast tumors. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 29 - 37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. K. Shah, S. K. Shah, and K. V. Greatrex Current Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Imaging: A Primer for the Primary Care Physician J Am Board Fam Med, November 1, 2005; 18(6): 478 - 490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. E. Barlow, C. Chi, P. A. Carney, S. H. Taplin, C. D'Orsi, G. Cutter, R. E. Hendrick, and J. G. Elmore Accuracy of Screening Mammography Interpretation by Characteristics of Radiologists J Natl Cancer Inst, December 15, 2004; 96(24): 1840 - 1850. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Bluemke, C. A. Gatsonis, M. H. Chen, G. A. DeAngelis, N. DeBruhl, S. Harms, S. H. Heywang-Kobrunner, N. Hylton, C. K. Kuhl, C. Lehman, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy JAMA, December 8, 2004; 292(22): 2735 - 2742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOGRAPHICS | RADIOLOGY | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
