Advertisement

Multimodality Breast Imaging: The Value of Diaphanography

  • W. R. Castor
  • F. I. Jackson
  • T. Hunt
Part of the Developments in Oncology book series (DION, volume 51)

Abstract

To date, available evidence identifies a better chance of survival for women with breast cancer detected by mammography but not palpable on physical examination [1]. However, even though substantial sums of money have been spent on breast cancer detection, the goal of reducing death from breast cancer in women below 50 years of age has not been realized. The ability of mammography to demonstrate nonpalpable lesions in patients below 50 years of age in the Health Insurance of New York study (HIP) conducted in the 1960s was limited. More recently with significantly improved mammography techniques Tabar has reported additional favorable screening results in the 40–74 age group compared to a control group with 31 percent reduction in mortality from breast cancer and 25 percent reduced incidence of stage II or greater breast lesions. In the 40- to 49-year age subgroup no reduction in mortality was observed [2].

Keywords

Breast Cancer Breast Biopsy Breast Cancer Detection False Negative Case Mammographic Image 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Feig, S.A. and Schwartz, G.F. (1984) Prognostic Radiologic Factors Among Breast Cancers Detected in Screening by Mammography. Early Detection of Breast Cancer. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 184–160.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tabar, L.K. et al. (1985) Reduction in breast cancer mortality by mass screening with mammography: first results of a randomized trial in two Swedish countries. Lancet April 13:829–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hicks, M. et al. (1949) Sensitivity of mammography and physical examination of the breast for detecting breast cancer. JAMA 242:2080–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moskowitz, M. (1983) Screening for breast cancer: how effective are our tests? A critical review. Ca 33:26–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker, L.H. (1982) Breast cancer detection demonstration project: 5 yr summary report. Ca 32:194–225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heywang, S. et al. (1985) Advantages and pitfalls of ultrasound in the diagnosis of breast cancer. J of Clin Ultrasound 13:525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber, W., Bickeles, E.A., Callen, P. and Filly, R. (1985) Non-palpable breast lesions localization: limited efficacy of sonography. Rad 155:783–784.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burns, et al. (1979) False negative mammograms causing delay in breast cancer diagnosis. J of Can Assoc Radiol 30:74–76.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cutler, M. (1929) Transillumination as an aid to diagnosis of breast lesions. Surg Gynecol Obst 48:721–727.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sickles, E.A. (1984) Breast cancer detection with transillumination and mammography. AJR 142:841–844.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartrum, R.J. and Crow, H.C. (1984) Transillumination light scanning to diagnose breast cancer; a feasibility study. AJR 142:409–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merritt, C.R.B. et al. (1984) Realtime transillumination light scanning of the breast. Radiographics 4:989–1009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolfe, J.N. (1985) Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. AJR 126:1130–1139.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moskowitz, M. et al. (1983) Evaluation of new imaging procedures for breast cancer: proper process. AJR 140:591–594.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sickles, E.A. (1985) Technology today: mammography advances in oncology 2:22–29.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ertefai, S. and Profio, A.E. Diaphanographic spectral transmittance and contrast. Medical Physics 12:395–400.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greene, F.I. et al. (1985) Mammography, sonomammography, and diaphanography: a prospective comparative study with histologic correlation. Am Surgeon 31:58–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, Boston 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. R. Castor
  • F. I. Jackson
  • T. Hunt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations