Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T15:14:01.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Procedures with digital mammography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Gary J. Whitman
Affiliation:
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Tamara Milner Haygood
Affiliation:
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Get access

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.

Type
Chapter
Information
Digital Mammography
A Practical Approach
, pp. 96 - 108
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Picard, JD.[History of mammography]. Bull Acad Natl Med 1998; 182: 1613–20.Google Scholar
Van Steen, A, Van Tiggelen, R.Short history of mammography: a Belgian perspective. JBR-BTR. 2007; 90: 151–3.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Flynn, EA, Wilson, AR, Michell, MJ. Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 259–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kopans, DB, Swann, CA.Preoperative imaging-guided needle placement and localization of clinically occult breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slawson, SH, Johnson, BA.Ductography: how to and what if?Radiographics 2001; 21: 133–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahesh, M.AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 2004; 24: 1747–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisano, ED.Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2000; 214: 26–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dershaw, DD, Fleischman, RC, Liberman, L, et al. Use of digital mammography in needle localization procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 559–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrino, JA.Digital imaging overview. Semin Roentgenol 2003; 38: 200–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houssami, N, Ciatto, S. The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening. Prev Med 2011; 53: 123–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, CS, Bachman, BA, Jacobson, L, et al. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: prompt image review speeds surgery. Am J Surg 2006; 192: 513–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×