Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast, and Radionuclide Imaging of the Breast

  • Chapter
Book cover Breast Cancer 2nd edition

Part of the book series: M.D. Anderson Cancer Care Series ((MDCCS))

  • 2563 Accesses

Breast imaging plays an important role in screening for breast cancer, classifying and sampling nonpalpable breast abnormalities, and defining the extent of breast tumors. Randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated lower mortality rates in women who undergo mammographic screening than in unscreened controls. In the past decade, there have been notable improvements in mammographic image quality and positioning. In breast conservation therapy, mammography is used to define the extent of malignancy before definitive breast-conserving surgery and to monitor the breast after surgery and radiation therapy. The use of stereotactic core needle biopsy has resulted in a decrease in the number of excisional biopsies performed. Mammography is also used to guide needle localizations, most of which, in our practice, are performed to help guide excision of known cancers. Magnetic resonance imaging shows great promise in detecting mammographically occult breast cancers and defining the extent of malignant disease. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided needle localization and core needle biopsy techniques have been developed to complement the increased utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging. Technetium Tc 99 m sestamibi imaging has proven to be reasonably accurate in the evaluation of palpable breast lesions but is thought to have limited utility in the evaluation of nonpalpable breast lesions. Digital mammography systems offer opportunities for postprocessing and reconfiguring of the original data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 1999;353: 1903–1908.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS—magnetic resonance imaging. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003a.

    Google Scholar 

  • American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS—mammography. 4th edition. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988;297:943–948.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under 50: updated results from the Malmo mammographic screening program. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997;22:63–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker KS, Davey DD, Stelling CB. Ductal abnormalities detected with galactography: frequency of adequate excisional biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:821–824.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bassett LW, Gold RH, Mirra JM. Nonneoplastic breast calcifications in lipid cysts: development after excision and primary irradiation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982;138:335–338.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG, et al. Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2003;98:468–473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia S, Robison LL, Oberlin O, et al. Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med 1996;334:745–751.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer 1997;80:2091–2099.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brem RF, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G, et al. Occult breast cancer: scintimammography with high-resolution breast-specific gamma camera in women at high risk for breast cancer. Radiology 2005;237:274–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner RJ, Jackman RJ, Parker SH, et al. Percutaneous core needle biopsy of radial scars of the breast: when is excision necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1179–1184.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canavese G, Gipponi M, Catturich A, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping opens a new perspective in the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer: a combined approach with vital blue dye lymphatic mapping and radioguided surgery. Semin Surg Oncol 1998;15:272–277.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cardenosa G, Eklund GW. Benign papillary neoplasms of the breast: mammographic findings. Radiology 1991;181:751–755.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chu KC, Smart CR, Tarone RE. Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the Health Insurance Plan clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988;80:1125–1132.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel BL, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast lesion localization: a freehand, interactive MR imaging-guided technique. Radiology 1998;207:455–463.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dao TH, Rahmouni A, Campana F, et al. Tumor recurrence versus fibrosis in the irradiated breast: differentiation with dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1993;187:751–755.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dershaw DD. Mammography in patients with breast cancer treated by breast conservation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:309–316.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DiPiro PJ, Meyer J, Shaffer K, et al. Usefulness of the routine magnification view after breast conservation therapy for carcinoma. Radiology 1996;198:341–343.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feig SA, Kopans DB, Sickles EA, et al. Rationale for annual screening mammography for women ages 40–49 years. Breast Disease 1998;10:13–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glass EC, Essner R, Giuliano AE. Sentinel node localization in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1999;29:57–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gorczyca DP, DeBruhl ND, Ahn CY, et al. Silicone breast implant ruptures in an animal model: comparison of mammography, MR imaging, US, and CT. Radiology 1994a;190:227–232.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gorczyca DP, Schneider E, DeBruhl ND, et al. Silicone breast implant rupture: comparison between three-point Dixon and fast spin-echo MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994b;162:305–310.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH III, et al. Benefit of screening mammography in women age 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997;22:87–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hillner BE. Decision analysis: MIBI imaging of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1772–1778.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jackman RJ, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: can some lesions be defined as probably benign after stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, eliminating the recommendation for surgical excision? Radiology 2002;224:548–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward F, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56:106–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Khalkhali I, Cutrone J, Mena I, et al. Technetium-99m-sestamibi scintimammography of breast lesions: clinical and pathological follow-up. J Nucl Med 1995a;36:1784–1789.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khalkhali I, Cutrone JA, Mena IG, et al. Scintimammography: the complementary role of Tc-99m sestamibi prone breast imaging for the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Radiology 1995b;196:421–426.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kopans DB. The breast cancer screening controversy continues. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:746.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;161:755–760.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999;211:101–110.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005;103:1898–1905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leung JW, Sickles EA. Multiple bilateral masses detected on screening mammography: assessment of need for recall imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:23–29.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Bracero N, Morris E, et al. MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum assisted breast biopsy: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:183–193.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:1111–1113.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, et al. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:333–341.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lumachi F, Ermani M, Marzola MC, et al. Relationship between prognostic factors of breast cancer and 99m Tc-sestamibi uptake in patients who underwent scintimammography: multivariate analysis of causes of false-negative results. Breast 2006;15:130–134.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCrea ES, Johnston C, Haney PJ. Metastases to the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983;141:685–690.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson EB. Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:107–138.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mettlin C, Smart CR. Breast cancer detection guidelines for women aged 40 to 49 years: rationale for the American Cancer Society reaffirmation of recommendations. CA Cancer J Clin 1994;44:248–255.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study. 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ 1992;147:1477–1488.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miner TJ, Shriver CD, Jaques DP, et al. Ultrasonographically guided injection improves localization of the radiolabeled sentinel lymph node in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998;5:315–321.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:619–626.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow M. Limiting breast surgery to the proper minimum. The Breast 2005;14:523–526.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220:13–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773–1783.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Piwnica-Worms D, Chiu ML, Budding M, et al. Functional imaging of multidrug-resistant P-glycoprotein with an organotechnetium complex. Cancer Res 1993;53:977–984.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds HE. Core needle biopsy of challenging benign breast conditions: a comprehensive literature review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1245–1250.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, et al. The Edinburgh randomised trial of screening for breast cancer: description of method. Br J Cancer 1984;50:1–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:75–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al. Periodic Screening for Breast Cancer: the Health Insurance Plan Project and its Sequelae, 1963–1986. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart CR. Highlights of the evidence of benefit for women aged 40–49 years from the 14-year follow-up of the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. Cancer 1994;74(suppl. 1):296–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH III, et al. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancer 1995;75:1619–1626.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH III, et al. Benefit of mammography screening in women age 40–49: current evidence from randomized controlled trials. In: Program and abstracts of the NIH Consensus Development Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40–49; January 21–23, 1997; Bethesda, MD: 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stomper PC, Recht A, Berenberg AL, et al. Mammographic detection of recurrent cancer in the irradiated breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;148:39–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H-H, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer 1995;75:2507–2517.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, et al. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:187–210.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taillefer R, Robidoux A, Lambert R, et al. Technetium-99m-sestamibi prone scintimammography to detect primary breast cancer and axillary lymph node involvement. J Nucl Med 1995;36:1758–1765.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tarone RE. The excess of patients with advanced breast cancer in young women screened with mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1995;75:997–1003.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waxman AD. A perspective on decision analysis modeling as it relates to sestamibi imaging of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1778–1780.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Woods ER, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM, et al. Solitary breast papilloma: comparison of mammographic, galactographic, and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159:487–491.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang WT, Whitman GJ, Johnson MM, et al. Needle localization for excisional biopsy of breast lesions: comparison of full-field digital versus screen-film mammographic guidance on procedural time. Radiology 2004;231:277–281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Gary J. Whitman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne C. Kushwaha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA

    Kelly K. Hunt MD

  2. Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA

    Geoffrey L. Robb MD

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA

    Eric A. Strom MD

  4. Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA

    Naoto T. Ueno MD, PhD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Whitman, G.J., Kushwaha, A.C. (2008). Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast, and Radionuclide Imaging of the Breast. In: Hunt, K.K., Robb, G.L., Strom, E.A., Ueno, N.T. (eds) Breast Cancer 2nd edition. M.D. Anderson Cancer Care Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34952-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34952-7_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-34950-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-34952-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation