Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2012
  • Online publication date: December 2012

Chapter 10 - Procedures with digital mammography

Summary

Introduction

The history of mammography dates back to 1913, when the German surgeon Albert Salomon published his work after doing x-rays on 30 000 specimens of breast tissue removed surgically and then studied histologically [1]. It was not till the 1980s that mammography assumed a major clinical role, with the beginning of the practice of regular mammographic screening [2]. Currently, about two-thirds of breast cancers are detected by mammography. An important recent advancement in mammography has been the introduction of digital mammography.

Mammographically guided procedures performed with digital imaging include stereotactic biopsies, needle localizations, galactography, and specimen radiography. Stereotactic guidance may be used for core biopsies and for needle localizations. Galactography involves the administration of contrast through the nipple to delineate the mammary ducts. These procedures have been markedly improved with the use of digital imaging, compared to film-screen imaging. Digital imaging results in a shorter time for image display, with less patient discomfort and anxiety. Digital imaging guidance has allowed physicians and technologists to operate more efficiently, and procedure room utilization has been improved. Specimen radiography is radiography of excisional or percutaneous biopsy specimens (including mastectomy specimens) in order to document removal of the targeted lesions. Digital mammography has made it possible for radiologists, surgeons, and pathologists to view specimen radiographs simultaneously in different parts of the hospital, improving communication between multidisciplinary team members and decreasing operating room times and procedure times.

References
Picard, JD.[History of mammography]. Bull Acad Natl Med 1998; 182: 1613–20.
Van Steen, A, Van Tiggelen, R.Short history of mammography: a Belgian perspective. JBR-BTR. 2007; 90: 151–3.
O’Flynn, EA, Wilson, AR, Michell, MJ. Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 259–70.
Koskela, AK, Sudah, M, Berg, MH, et al. Add-on device for stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy: how many biopsy specimens are needed for a reliable diagnosis?Radiology 2005; 236: 801–9.
Lomoschitz, FM, Helbich, TH, Rudas, M, et al. Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: influence of number of specimens on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 2004; 232: 897–903.
Kopans, DB, Swann, CA.Preoperative imaging-guided needle placement and localization of clinically occult breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152: 1–9.
Slawson, SH, Johnson, BA.Ductography: how to and what if?Radiographics 2001; 21: 133–50.
Ciccarelli, G, Di Virgilio, MR, Menna, S, et al. Radiography of the surgical specimen in early stage breast lesions: diagnostic reliability in the analysis of the resection margins. Radiol Med 2007; 112: 366–76.
Mahesh, M.AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 2004; 24: 1747–60.
Pisano, ED.Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2000; 214: 26–8.
Irwin, MR, Downey, DB, Gardi, L, Fenster, A.Registered 3-D ultrasound and digital stereotactic mammography for breast biopsy guidance. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008; 27: 391–401.
Yang, WT, Whitman, GJ, Johnson, MM, et al. Needle localization for excisional biopsy of breast lesions: comparison of effect of use of full-field digital versus screen-film mammographic guidance on procedure time. Radiology 2004; 231: 277–81.
Dershaw, DD, Fleischman, RC, Liberman, L, et al. Use of digital mammography in needle localization procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 559–62.
Haygood, TM, Wang, J, Atkinson, EN, et al. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 216–20.
Carrino, JA.Digital imaging overview. Semin Roentgenol 2003; 38: 200–15.
Houssami, N, Ciatto, S. The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening. Prev Med 2011; 53: 123–6.
Pisano, ED, Gatsonis, C, Hendrick, E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773–83.
Van Ongeval, C, Bosmans, H, Van Steen, A.Current status of digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2006; 18: 547–54.
Becker, L, Taves, D, McCurdy, L, et al. Stereotactic core biopsy of breast microcalcifications: comparison of film versus digital mammography, both using an add-on unit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 1451–7.
Kuzmiak, CM, Millnamow, GA, Qaqish, B, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens. Acad Radiol 2002; 9: 1378–82.
Kaufman, CS, Bachman, BA, Jacobson, L, et al. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: prompt image review speeds surgery. Am J Surg 2006; 192: 513–15.