Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Imaging

  • Chapter
Learning Diagnostic Imaging

  • 2679 Accesses

Abstract

A breast imaging unit performs a variety of diagnostic techniques and image-guided interventional procedures. Mammography, ultrasound, galactography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are some of the most widely used modalities in breast imaging. Common image-guided interventional procedures in the breast are percutaneous biopsies guided by stereotaxy, ultrasound, or MRI, preoperative marking of non-palpable lesions, and the injection of radioactive substances in sentinel node biopsy.

Melcior Sentis Criville and Maria Martinez Galvez (Contributors)

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.

Further Readings

Books

  • Americam College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston VA; ACR, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Breast Cancer — The Art and Science of Early Detection with Mammography. Tabar L, Tot T, Dean PB (2004). Thieme Medical Publishers. ISBN-13: 9781588902597

    Google Scholar 

  • Breast Imaging. 3rd ed. Kopans DB (2006) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN-13: 9780781747684

    Google Scholar 

  • Breast Imaging Companion. Cardeñosa G (1997) Lippincott-Raven. ISBN-13: 9780397517787

    Google Scholar 

  • Diagnostic Breast Imaging: Mammography, Sonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Interventional Procedures. 2nd ed. Heywang-Koebrunner S (2001) Thieme Medical Publishers. ISBN-13: 9781588900333

    Google Scholar 

  • European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. de Wolf CJ, Perry N (1996). European Communities / Union (EUR-OP/OOPEC/OPOCE). ISBN-13: 9789282774304

    Google Scholar 

  • Practical Breast Pathology. Tot T, Tabar L, Dean PB (2002) Thieme Medical Publishers. ISBN-13: 9781588900913

    Google Scholar 

  • Radiology: Diagnosis, Imaging, Intervention. Taveras JM, Ferrucci JT (2003) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN-13: 9780015342449

    Google Scholar 

  • The Practice of Breast Ultrasound: Techniques, Findings, Differential Diagnosis. Madjar H (2000) Thieme Medical Publishers. ISBN-13: 9781588904485

    Google Scholar 

  • Diagnosis of Diseases of the Breast. 2nd ed. Bassett LW, Jackson V, Fu K, Fu Y (1997) Saunders Company. ISBN-13 9780721695631

    Google Scholar 

  • Americam College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System. Reston VA; ACR, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Breast Imaging. Kopans DB 2001. Lippincott-Raven

    Google Scholar 

Web-Links

Articles

  • Adepoju LJ, Chun J, El-Tamer M, Ditkoff BA, Schnabel F, Joseph KA. The value of clinical characteristics and breast-imaging studies in predicting a histopathologic diagnosis of cancer or high-risk lesion in patients with spontaneous nipple discharge. Am J Surg 2005; 190(4):644–646

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Adrales G, Turk P, Wallace T, Bird R, Norton HJ, Greene F. Is surgical excision necessary for atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast diagnosed by Mammotome? Am J Surg 2000; 180(4):313–315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Agoff SN, Lawton TJ. Papillary lesions of the breast with and without atypical ductal hyperplasia: can we accurately predict benign behavior from core needle biopsy? Am J Clin Pathol 2004; 122(3):440–443

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Al Sarakbi W, Worku D, Escobar PF, Mokbel K. Breast papillomas: current management with a focus on a new diagnostic and therapeutic modality. Int Semin Surg Oncol 2006; 3:1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alleva DQ, Smetherman DH, Farr GH, Cederbom GJ. Radial scar of the breast: Radiologic-pathologic correlation in 22 cases. Radiographics 1999; 19:S27–S35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso-Bartolomé P, Vega-Bolívar A, Torres-Tabanera M, Ortega E, Acebal-Blanco M, Garijo-Ayensa F, Rodrigo I, Muñoz-Cacho P. Sonographically guided 11-G directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy as an alternative to surgical excision: Utility and cost study in probably benign lesions. Acta Radiológica 2004; 4:390–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker KS, Davey DD, Stelling CB. Ductal abnormalities detected with galactography: frequency of adequate excisional biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162(4):821–824

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E. Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 2002; 12(5):1087–1092

    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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berg WA. When is core breast biopsy or fine-needle aspiration not enough? Radiology 1996; 198:313–315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berg WA, Arnoldus Ch L, Teferra E, Bhargavan M. Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: Pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 2001; 221:495–503

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berube M, Curpen B, Ugolini P, Lalonde L, Ouimet-Olivia D. Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy. Can Assoc Radiol J 1998; 49(4):223–228

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner RJ. Strategies in the evaluation of breast asymmetries. Appl Radiol 1998; 27:15–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison study. Acad Radiol 1997; 4:419–425

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ciatto S, Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Bonardi R, Collini G, Del Turco MR. Minority report — false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007; 105(1):37–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ciatto S, Morrone D, Catarzi S, Del Turco MR, Bianchi S, Ambrogetti D, Cariddi A. Radial scars of the breast: Review of 38 consecutive mammographic diagnoses. Radiology 1993; 187:757–760

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MA, Sferlazza SJ. Role of sonography in evaluation of scars of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:1075–1078

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R, Franceschini G, Mule A, Bonomo L. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25(5):649–659

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Liberman L, Abramson AF. Nondiagnostic stereotaxic core breast biopsy: Results of rebiopsy. Radiology 1996; 198:323–325

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Diebold T, Hahn T, Solbach C, Rody A, Balzer JO, Hansmann ML, Marx A, Viana F, Peters J, Jacobi V, Kaufmann M, Vogl TJ. Evaluation of the stereotactic 8G vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in the histologic evaluation of suspicious mammography findings (BI-RADS IV). Invest Radiol 2005; 40(7):465–471

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diebold T, Jacobi V, Krapfl E, von Minckwitz G, Solbach C, Ballenberger S, Hochmuth K, Balzer JO, Fellbaum M, Kaufmann M, Vogl TJ. The role of stereotactic 11G vacuum biopsy for clarification of BI-RADS IV findings in mammography. Rofo 2003; 175(4):489–494

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feig SA. Adverse effects of screening mammography. Radiol Clin N Am 2004; 42:807–819

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fine RE, Israel PZ, Walker LC, Corgan KR, Greenwald LV, Berenson JE, Boyd BA, Oliver MK, McClure T, Elberfeld J. A prospective study of the removal rate of imaged breast lesions by an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy probe system. Am J Surg 2001; 182(4):335–340

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frouge C, Tristant H, Guinebretiere JM, Meunier M, Conteso G, Paola R, Blery M. Mammographic lesions suggestive of radial scars: Microscopic findings in 40 cases. Radiology 1995; 195:623–625

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gill HK, Ioffe OB, Berg WA. When is a diagnosis of sclerosing adenosis acceptable at core biopsy? Radiology 2003; 228:50–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajulu S, Narreddy SR, Shere MH, Ibrahim NB, Sahu AK, Cawthorn SJ. Sonographically guided mammotome excision of ducts in the diagnosis and management of single duct nipple discharge. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32(7):725–728

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, Hopf G, Morgun M, Graf C, Mallek R, Sickles EA. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: Can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004; 233:850–856

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guenin MA. Benign intraductal papilloma: Diagnosis and removal at stereotactic vacuum-assisted directional biopsy guided by galactography. Radiology 2001; 218:576–579

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta RK, Gaskell D, Dowle CS, Simpson JS, King BR, Naran S, Lallu S, Fauck R. The role of nipple discharge cytology in the diagnosis of breast disease: a study of 1948 nipple discharge smears from 1530 patients. Cytopathology 2004; 15(6):326–330

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harms SE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1998; 19:104–120

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey JA. Sonography of palpable breast masses. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2006; 27(4):284–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low suspicion lesions: Compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178:155–158

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick RE, smith RA, Rutlege JH, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:87–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hou MF, Huang TJ, Liu GC. The diagnostic value of galactography in patients with nipple discharge. Clin Imaging. 2001; 25(2):75–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huber S, Wagner M, Medl M, Czembirek H. Benign breast lesions: minimally invasive vacuum-assisted biopsy with 11-gauge needles-Patient acceptance and effect on followup imaging findings. Radiology 2003; 226:783–790

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunerbein M, Raubach M, Gebauer B, Schneider W, Schlag PM. Ductoscopy and intraductal vacuum assisted biopsy in women with pathologic nipple discharge. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 99:301–307

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huynh PT, Jarolimek AM, Daye S. The false-negative mammogram. Radiographics 1998; 18:1137–1154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jackman RJ, Nowelss KW, Rodriguez-Soto J, Marzoni FA, Finkelstein SL, Shepard MJ. Stereotactic, automated, Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: False-negative and histologic understimation rates after long-term follow-up. Radiology 1999; 210:799–805

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson AT, Henry-Tillman RS, Smith LF, et al. Percutaneous excisional breast biopsy. Am J Surg 2002; 184:550–554

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995; 273:149–154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham LA, Lehman CD, Yankaskas BC, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Voeks JH, Geller BM, Carney PA, Sickles EA. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. Radiology 2005; 234:684–692

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kettritz U, Morack G, Decker T. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsies in 500 women with microcalcifications: radiological and pathological correlations. Eur J Radiol 2005; 5(2):270–276

    Google Scholar 

  • King TA, Scharfenberg JC, Smetherman DH, Farkas EA, Bolton JS, Fuhrman GM. A better understanding of the term radial scar. Am J Surg 2000; 180:428–433

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan SE, Denton ERE, Nash RM, Humphreys S, Michell MJ. Multiple 14G Stereotactic core biopsies in the diagnosis of mammographically detected stellate lesions of the breast. Clin Radiol 2000; 55:763–766

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl CK. MRI of breast tumor. Eur Radiol 2000; 10:46–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzmiak CM, Dancel R, Pisano E, Zeng D, Cole E, Koomen MA, McLelland R. Consensus review: A method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up. Acad Radiol 2006; 13(5):621–629

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingswotrth AB. Positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system. J Am Coll Surg 1999; 189(1):34–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee Ch. Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40(3):395–407

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee CH, Philpotts LE, Horvath LJ, Tocino I. Follow-up of breast lesions diagnosed as benign with stereotactic coreneedle biopsy: Frequency of mammographic change and false-negative rate. Radiology 1999; 212:189–194

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JM, Orel SG, Czerniecki BJ, Solin LJ, Schnall MD. MRI before reexcision surgery in patients with breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:473–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L. Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38(4):791–806

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after sterotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 1997;205:417–422

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System: Positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:35–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998;208(3):717–723

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Bracero N, Vuolo MA, et al. Percutaneous largecore biopsy of papillary breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:331–337

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman L, Kaplan JB, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Menell JH, Dershaw DD. To excise or to sample the mammographic target: What is the goal of stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:679–683

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindfors KK, O’Connor J, Acredolo CR, Liston SE. Short-interval follow-up mammography versus immediate core biopsy of benign breast lesions: Assessment of patient stress. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:55–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Litherland JC. Should fine needle aspiration cytology in breast assessment be abandoned? Clin Radiol 2002;57:81–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lomoschitz FM, Helbich TH, Rudas M, Pfarl G, Linnau KF, Stadler A, Jackman RJ. Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: Influence of number of specimens on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 2004;232(3):897–903

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen J, Wedel AK, Lisboa BW, Loning T, Adam G. Diagnostic mammography and sonography: concordance of the breast imaging reporting assessments and final clinical outcome. Rofo 2005;177(11):1545–1551

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelblatt JS, Wheat ME, Monane M, Moshief RD, Hollenberg JP, Tang J. Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions: a decision analysis model. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:722–730

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson EB, harris KM, Doshi N, Tobon H. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma: mammographic patterns with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;153:265–271

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E. Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB). Ann Oncol 2003;14:450–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Singer C, Koenigsberg T, Pile-Spellman E, Higgins H, Smith SJ. Papillary Lesions of the Breast: Evaluation with stereotactic directional vacuumassisted biopsy. Radiology 2001;221:650–655

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris EA. Breast cancer imaging with MRI. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40:443–466

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, Satija S, Yeh FD, McCarthy KA, Hall D, Staffa M, Rafferty EA, Halpern E, Kopans DB. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: Retrospective review. Radiology 2002;225:176–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orel SG. MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:899–913

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR Imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220:13–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneous largecore breast biopsy:A multi-institutional study. Radiology 1994;193:359–364

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, et al. US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 1993;187(2):507–511

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paterok EM, Rosenthal H, Sabel M. Nipple discharge and abnormal galactogram. Results of a long-term study (1964–1990). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;50:227–234

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson LK, Sickles EA, Frankel SD, Leung J. Efficacy of step-oblique mammography for çconfirmation and localization of densities seen on only one standard mammographic view. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:745–752

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Jain KS, Carter D, Lee CCH. Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: Clinical importance. Radiology 2000;216:831–837

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pijnappel M, Peeters HM, Hendriks HC and Mali Th M. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for nonpalpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 2004;77:312–314

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Puglisi F, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M, Valent F, Aprile G, Pertoldi B, Minisini AM, Cedolini C, Londero V, Piga A, Di Loreto C. Role of mammography, ultrasound and large core biopsy in the diagnostic evaluation of papillary breast lesions. Oncology 2003;65(4):311–315

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213:889–894

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen EL, Bentley RC, Baker JA, Soo MS. Imaging-guided core needle biopsy of papillary lesions of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1185–1192

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1275–1282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Samardar P, de Paredes SE, Grimes MM, Wilson JD. Focal asymmetric densities seen at mammography: US and pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2002;22:19–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sardanelli F, Giusepetti G, Panizza P, et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183(4):1149–1157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sauter ER, Schlatter L, Lininger J, Hewett JE. The association of bloody nipple discharge with breast pathology. Surgery 2004;136(4):780–785

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Rosser R. 10 to 14-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl cancer Inst 1982;69:349–355

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman SG, March DE. Ultrasound-Guided Breast Interventions: Accuracy of biopsy techniques and applications in patient management. Sem Ultrasound CT MR 2006;27(4):298–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign breast lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463–468

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sickles EA. Non-palpable circumscribed, non-calcified solid masses: Likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 1994;192:439–442

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sickles EA. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33:1123–1130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sickles EA. Sickles EA. Probably benign breast lesions: When should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal followup protocol? Radiology 1999;213:11–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sickles EA, Parker SH. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy in the management of probably benign lesions. Radiology 1993;188:315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simon JR, Kalbhen CL, Cooper RA, Flisak ME. Accuracy and complication guided vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy: Initial results. Radiology 2000;215:694–697

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simsir A, Waisman J, Thorner K, Cangiarella J. Mammary lesions diagnosed as “papillary” by aspiration biopsy: 70 cases with follow-up. Cancer 2003;99(3):156–165

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DN, Rosenfield Darling ML, Meyer JE, et al. The utility of ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy: results from 500 consecutive breast biopsies. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20(1):43–49

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RA, Duffy SW, MPhil RG, Tabar L, Yen A, Chen T. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: What have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:793–806

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Gebretsadik T. Is screening mammography effective in elderly women? Am J Med 2000:108:112–119

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer NJB, Evans AJ, Galea M, et al. Pathological-radiological correlations in benign lesions excised during a breast screening programme. Clin Radiol 1994;49:853–856

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thurfjell MG, Lindgren A, Thurfjell E. Nonpalpable breast cancer: Mammographic appearance as predictor of histologic type. Radiology 2002;222:165–170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Non-palpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992, 184:409–414

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(3):691–695

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vargas HI, Vargas MP, Eldrageely K, González KD, Burla MI, Venegas R, Khalkhali I. Outcomes of surgical and sonographic assessment of breast masses in women younger than 30. Am Surg 2005;71(9):716–719

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Andreo L, Salas D, Ruiz-perales F, Cuevas D, Herranz C, Bueno F. Short-term Follow-up Results in 795 Nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001;219:475–483

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Pettinger M, Chlebowski RT, Robbins JA, Lane DS, Hendrix SL. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:429–436

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Unit, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba, Spain

    Marina Alvarez Benito (Chief)

  2. Radiology Department, Hospital de la Ribera, Alzira, Valencia, Spain

    Julia Camps Herrero (Chief)

Authors
  1. Marina Alvarez Benito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Camps Herrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Interventional Radiology and MR Units, Reina Sofia University Hospital, 14005, Cordoba, Spain

    Ramon Ribes MD, PhD

  2. MR Unit, Clinica Las Nieves Sercosa, 23007, Jaen, Spain

    Antonio Luna MD (Chief) (Chief)

  3. Department of Radiology Sant Pau Hospital, Autonomous University, 08025, Barcelona, Spain

    Pablo R. Ros MD, MPH (Chairman and Professor) (Chairman and Professor)

  4. Department of Radiology Harvard Medical School, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Pablo R. Ros MD, MPH (Chairman and Professor) (Chairman and Professor)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Benito, M.A., Herrero, J.C. (2008). Breast Imaging. In: Ribes, R., Luna, A., Ros, P.R. (eds) Learning Diagnostic Imaging. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71207-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71207-7_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71206-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71207-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation