Breast Imaging

  • Anne C. HoytEmail author
  • Irene Tsai


Mammography is the primary imaging modality for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, with ultrasound being the most important adjunctive imaging tool. Breast magnetic resonance imaging is also used in certain screening and diagnostic scenarios. The American College of Radiology breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) provides a standardized lexicon that improves communication of breast imaging results, allows for patient tracking and quality assurance, and facilitates medical audits. Due to its widespread, international use, the BI-RADS lexicon should be understood by all referring clinicians and will be a focus of this chapter.


American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer BI-RADS categories BI-RADS lexicon Breast cancer screening Breast MRI Breast cyst Breast ultrasound Calcifications Core needle biopsy Digital breast tomosynthesis Mammography Screening breast ultrasound Synthetic mammogram 


  1. 1.
    McLelland R, Hendrick RE, Zinninger MD, et al. The American college of radiology mammography accreditation program. Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157:497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. Public Law 102539.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. ACR BI-RADS Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    American College of Radiology. Standards for the performance of screening mammography. [Adopted by the ACR Council 1990, Revised 1994]. In: ACR digest of official actions. Reston, VA: ACR; 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomized trial from the breast cancer screening working group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1:829–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel: breast cancer screening for women 40–49. J Natl Cancer inst. 1997;39:1015–26.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howlander N, Noone A, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2012. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2015.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Webb ML, Cady B, Michaelson JS, Bush DM, Calvillo KZ, Kopans DB, Smith BL. A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened. Cancer. 2014;120(18):2839–46. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40-49 years: evaluation of the Swedish mammography screening in young women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer. 2011;117(4):714–22. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25650 (Epub 2010 Sep 29).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer. 2002;95:458–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freer P, Moy L, Demartini WB. Breast cancer screening: understanding the randomized controlled trial. SBI News. 2015;3:25–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joe B, Price E, Parkinson B. Screening in the 40–49 age group. SBI News. 2016;1:12–4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Independent UK. Panel on breast cancer screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:793–806.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tabar L, Yen AM, Wu WY, et al. Insights from the breast cancer screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs. Breast J. 2015;21:13–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duffy SW, Yen AMF, Chen THH, et al. Long-term benefits of breast screening. Breast Cancer Manage. 2012;1:31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gotzsche PC, Jorgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Broeders M, Moss S, Nystrom L, et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen. 2012;19(suppl 1):14–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nickson C, Mason KE, English DR, Kavanagh AM. Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case-control study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2012;21:1479–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coldman A, Phillips N, Wilson C, et al. Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11):dju261.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. (CISNET) Collaborators. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(3):723–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oeffinger KC, Fontham ETH, Etzioni R. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–614.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siu AL. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:279–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al. Staging system for breast cancer: revisions for the 6th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83(4):803–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    American College of Radiology (ACR). Clinical Practice Guideline for the performance of diagnostic mammography and problem-solving breast evaluation [Adopted by the ACR Council 1994]. In: ACR digest of official actions. Reston, VA: ACR; 1994.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Destounis SV, Morgan R, Arieno A. Screening for dense breasts: digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:261–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, et al. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammogram: outcome analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;6:737–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Gujnoch LJ, et al. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499–507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):655–63. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131391 (Epub 2014 Jan 24).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Linver MN, Osuch JR, Brenner RJ, et al. Mammography medical audit: primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:19–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gold RH, Montgomery CK, Rambo ON. Significance of margination of benign and malignant infiltrative mammary lesions: roentgenologic-pathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 1973;118:881–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hall FM, Storella JM, Silverstone DZ, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. Radiology. 1988;167:353–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moskowitz M. The predictive value of certain mammographic signs in screening for breast cancer. Cancer. 1983;51:1007–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology. 1994;192:439–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology. 1989;171:645–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Feig SA. Breast masses: mammographic and sonographic evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:67–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jackson VP, Dines KA, Bassett LW, et al. Diagnostic importance of radiographic density of noncalcified breast masses: analysis of 91 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157:25–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bassett LW. Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:93–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sickles EA. Mammographic features of 300 Consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. Am J Roentgenol. 1986;146:661–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sickles EA. Mammographic features of “early”: breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 1984;143:461–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, et al. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal finding and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1373–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Robertson CL, Kopans DB. Communication problems after mammographic screening. Radiology. 1989;172:443–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brew MD, Billings JD, Chisholm RJ. Mammography and breast pain. Australas Radiol. 1989;33:335–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jackson VP, Loex AM, Smith DJ. Patient discomfort during screen-film mammography. Radiology. 1998;168:421–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stomper PC, Kopans DB, Sadowsky NL, et al. Is mammography painful? A multicenter patient study. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:521–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Physician Insurer’s Association of America. PIAA breast cancer study, MPL cancer claims mini series: volume 1. Washington, DC: Physician Insurers Association of America; 2013.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Feig SA, Shaber GS, Patchefsky A, et al. Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors. Am J Roentenol. 1977;128:403–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mann BD, Giuliano AE, Bassett LW, et al. Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer as a result of normal mammograms. Arch Surg. 1983;118:23–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fornage BD, Lorigan JG, Andry E. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. Radiology. 1989;172:671–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196:123–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Entrekin R, Jackson P, Jago JR, Porter BA. Compound Imaging in breast ultrasound: technology and early clinical experience. Medicamundi. 1999;43(3):35–43.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rosen EL, Soo MS. Tissue harmonic imaging sonography of breast lesions: improved margin analysis, conspicuity and image quality compared to conventional ultrasound. Clin Imaging. 2001;25(6):379–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mesurolle B, Helou T, El-Khoury M, et al. Tissue harmonic imaging, frequency compound imaging and conventional imaging: use and benefit in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(8):1041–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213:889–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer. 1995;76:626–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, et al. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2002;21:325–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001;221:641–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:177–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US—diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology. 1998;207:191–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27, 825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American college of radiology imaging network (ACRIN) 6666. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1225–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al. ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–63. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151.
  67. 67.
    Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, et al. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):157–66. doi: 10.7326/M14-0692.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun. Radiology. 1990;176:741–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jackson VP, Bassett LW. Stereotactic fine-needle aspiration biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154:1196–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bassett LW, Winchester DP, Caplan RB, et al. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997;47:171–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sickles EA, Parker SH. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy in the management of probably benign lesions. Radiology. 1993;199:315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lee CH, Philpotts LE, Horvath LJ, et al. Follow-up of breast lesions diagnosed as benign with stereotactic coreneedle biopsy: frequency of mammographic change and false negative rate. Radiology. 1999;212:189–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Brem RF, Behrndt VS, Sanow L, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histologic underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-G stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1405–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jackman RJ, Nowels W, Rodriguez-Soto J, et al. Stereotactic, automated, large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: false-negative rates and histologic underestimation rates after long-term follow-up. Radiology. 1999;210:799–805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Liberman L, Bracero N, Vuolo MA, et al. Percutaneous large-core biopsy of papillary breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:331–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Liberman L, Sama M, Susnik B, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ at percutaneous breast biopsy: surgical biopsy findings. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:291–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Carter D, et al. Comparison of rebiopsy rates after stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast with 11-G vacuum suction probe vs. 14-G automatic gun. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:683–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Brenner RJ, Jackman RJ, Parker SH, et al. Percutaneous core needle biopsy of radial scars of the breast: when is excision necessary? Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Foster MC, Helvie MA, Gregory NE, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical lobular hyperplasia at coreneedle biopsy: is excisional biopsy necessary? Radiology. 2004;231:813–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mahoney MC, Robinson-Smith TM, Shaughnessy EA. Lobular neoplasia at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy: correlation with surgical excisional biopsy and mammographic follow-up. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:949–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    El Yousef SJ, O’Connell DM, Duchesneau RH, et al. Benign and malignant breast disease: magnetic resonance and radiofrequency pulse sequences. Am J Roentgenol. 1985;145:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmidt H, et al. MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J Comput Asst Tomogr. 1986;10:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kaiser WA (1992) MRM promises earlier breast cancer diagnosis. Diagn Imaging Int. 11:44–50.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Heywang-Kobrunner SH. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast-overview after 1250 patient examinations. Electromedica. 1993;2:43–52.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, et al. MRI of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1993;186:493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MRI. Radiology. 1994;191:625–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gorczyca DP, Sinha S, Ahn CY, et al. Silicone breast implants in vivo: MR imaging. Radiology. 1992;185:407–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2005;103:1898–905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:427–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8469–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet. 2005;365:1769–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sardanelli F. Breast MRI imaging in women at high risk of breast cancer. Is something changing in early breast cancer detection? Eur Radiol. 2007;73: 873–87.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveil-lance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292:1317–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    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. 2009;57:75–89. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, et al. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. Clin Oncol. 2014;32(22):2304–10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.5386 (Epub 2014 Jun 23).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Khalkhali I, Mena I, Jouanne E, et al. Prone scintimammography in patients with suspicion of carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;178:491–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tolmos J, Cutrone JA, Wang B, et al. Scintimammographic analysis of non palpable breast lesions previously identified by conventional mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:846–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Prats E, Carril J, Herranz R, et al. Spanish multicenter scintigraphic study of the breast using Tc99 m MIBI: report of results. Rev Esp Med Nucl. 1998;17:338–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, et al. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;247(3):651–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Shermis RB, Wilson KD, Doyle MT, et al. Supplemental breast cancer screening with molecular breast imaging for women with dense breast tissue. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;17:1–8.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Adler LP, Crowe JP, Al-Kasisi NK, et al. Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with (F-18) 2-Deoxy-2-fluro-D-glucose PET. Radiology. 1993;187:743–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Winchester DJ, Sener SF, Winchester DP, et al. Sentinel lymphadencotomy for breast cancer: experience what 180 consecutive patients: efficacy of filtered technetium 99 m sulphur colloid with overnight migration time. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;188:597–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Schwartz GF, Guiliano AE, Veronesi U. Consensus conference committee. Proceeding of the consensus conference of the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in carcinoma or the breast scr; 2002.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, et al. Quality determinants of mammography; clinical practice guideline. No 13. AHCPR Publication 95-0632. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, October 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiological SciencesUCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiological SciencesUCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations