Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mammographie

  • Chapter
Mammadiagnostik

  • 2193 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Kapitel werden die technischen Grundlagen der Röntgenmammographie, die Technik der Einstellung der Patientin, die Befundung und die Entwicklung im Mammographie-Screening dargestellt. Nach der Erläuterung der technischen Zusammenhänge und wichtiger Aspekte der Befunddokumentation werden dabei auch kritische Einwendungen diskutiert und mögliche Neuentwicklungen besprochen.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Literatur

Literatur zu Kap. 4.1–4.3

  • Aichinger H, Dierker J, Säbel M, Joite-Barfuß S (1994) Image quality and dose in mammography. Electromedica 62: 7–11

    Google Scholar 

  • BÄK (Bundesärztekammer) (2007) Leitlinien der Bundesärztekammer zur Qualitätssicherung in der Röntgendiagnostik – Qualitätskriterien röntgendiagnostischer Untersuchungen, gemäß Beschluss des Vorstandes der Bundesärztekammer vom 23. November 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • BEIR V (Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) (1990) Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Academic Press, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blendl C, Hermann K-P, Mertelmeier T (2005) Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren für digitale Mammographie-Einrichtungen, PAS 1054. Beuth, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1996) European protocol on dosimetry in mammography, Report EUR 16263 CEC, Luxemborg

    Google Scholar 

  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2006) European Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening. In: CEC (Hrsg) European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 4th edn. CEC, Luxemburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Dance DR (1990) Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose, Phys Med Biol 35:1211–1219

    Google Scholar 

  • Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC et al (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol, Phys Med Biol 45: 3225–3240

    Google Scholar 

  • Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE (2009) Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols, Phys Med Biol 54:4361–43729

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer U, Hermann K-P, Baum F (2006) Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16:38–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung H (1998) Mammographie und Strahlenrisiko, Fortschr Röntgenstr 169:336–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung H (2001) Abschätzung von Nutzen und Risiko eines Mammographiescreenings unter ausschließlichem Bezug auf das Strahlenrisiko. Radiologe 41: 385–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J et al (1997) Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 42: 651–671

    Google Scholar 

  • Loos C, Buhr H, Blendl C (2013) Investigation of the Performance of Digital Mammographic X-Ray Equipment: Determination of Noise Equivalent Quanta (NEQQC) and Detective Quantum Efficiency (DQEQC) Compared with the Automated Analysis of CDMAM Test Images with CDCOM and CDIC Programs. Fortschr Röntgenstr 185: 635–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Neitzel U (1998) Grundlagen der digitalen Bildgebung. In: Ewen K (Hrsg) Moderne Bildgebung. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 63–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Nekolla EA, Griebel J, Brix G (2008) Strahlenrisiko infolge von Mammographie-Screening-Untersuchungen für Frauen unter 50 Jahren, Z Med Phys 18:170–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Google Scholar 

  • QL-Richtlinie (2014) Richtlinie zur Durchführung der Qualitätssicherung bei Röntgeneinrichtungen zur Untersuchung oder Behandlung von Menschen nach den §§ 16 und 17 der Röntgenverordnung vom 23. Juni 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • RöV (2003) Röntgenverordnung – Verordnung über den Schutz vor Schäden durch Röntgenstrahlung vom 30.4.2003. BGBl I 2003, 604

    Google Scholar 

  • Säbel M, Aichinger H (1996) Recent developments in breast imaging. Phys Med Biol 41:315–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Säbel M, Aichinger U, Schulz-Wendtland R (2001) Die Strahlenexposition bei der Röntgen-Mammographie. Fortschr Röntgenstr 173:79–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Säbel M, Schulz-Wendtland R (2002) Vergrößerungstechnik. In: Schmidt, Freyschmidt (Hrsg) Handbuch Diagnostische Radiologie, Bd 1. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokio, S 180–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Wendtland R, Fuchsjäger M, Wacker T, Hermann K-P (2009) Digital mammography: An update. Eur J Radiol 72:258–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann K-P, Uder M (2010) Digitale Tomosynthese der Brust, Radiologie up2date 3:195–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk on Radiation-induced Brest Cancer from Mammographic Screening, Radiology 258:98–105

    Google Scholar 

Literatur zu Kap. 4.4

  • Mammographie-Vereinbarung (2011) Vereinbarung von Qualitätssicherungsmaßnahmen nach § 135 Abs. 2 SGB V zur kurativen Mammographie. Dtsch Ärzteblatt 108:A791–A803

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th ed. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Richtlinie zu Aufzeichnungspflichten (2006) nach den §§ 18, 27, 28 und 36 der Röntgenverordnung und Bekanntmachung zum Röntgenpass vom 31.07. 2006 (GMBl. 2006, Nr. 53, 1051)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijken H et al (2000) Positionierungstechnik in der Mammographie. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Wülfing U, Pfandzelter R, Kettritz U, Siekmann M, Hurtienne B, Verloh C (2011) Mammographien regelgerecht erstellen – Hinweise für die Erstellung von Mammographien auf der Grundlage einer Mängelanalyse der Kassenärztlichen Bundesvereinigung. Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Literatur zu Kap. 4.5

  • American College of Radiology (2016) ACR BI-RADS®-Atlas der Mammadiagnostik. Übersetzung der 5. englischen Ausgabe. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks JHCL, Dronkers DJ, Rosenbusch G (1999) Anatomie. In: Dronkers DJ, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R, Rosenbusch G (Hrsg) Radiologische Mammadiagnostik. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreienberg R, Albert US, Follmann M, Kopp IB, Kühn T, Wöckel A (2012) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitline für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, 3. Aufl, Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie der AWMF, Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V. und Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechtel K (1971) Mastopathie und altersabhängige Brustdrüsenveränderungen. Fortschr Med 89: 1312–1315

    Google Scholar 

Literatur zu Kap. 4.6 und 4.7

  • Acton QA (2013) Breast Cancer: New Insights for the Healthcare Professional. Edition is a ScholarlyEditions™. Q A Acton

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg WA, Yang WT (2013) Breast. 2. Aufl, Amirsys, Manitoba, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Birke S, Schulz-Wendtland R, Wenkel E (2006) Mammographic and ultrasonographic features of metastases of malignant melanoma of the breast. Rofo 178(9): 919–921

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallenberg, EM, Dimitrijevic L, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Kettritz U, Poellinger A, Bick U, Winzer KJ, Engelken F, Renz D M (2014a) Impact of magnification views on the characterization of microcalcifications in digital mammography. Rofo 186(3):274–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Renz D M, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, Neumann AU, Winzer K J, Bick U, Hamm B, Engelken F (2014b) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 146(2):71–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 22(2):101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenbach B, Brandenbusch V, Möbus V, Mall G, Falk S et al. (2017) A matrix of morphology and distribution of calcifications in the breast: Analysis of 849 vacuum-assisted biopsies. Eur J Radiol 86:22–1226

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) 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 225(1):165–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin RS, Plevritis SK (2012) Comparing the benefits of screening for breast cancer and lung cancer using a novel natural history model. Cancer Causes Control 23(1):175–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schimpfle, M, DRG (2008) Consensus meeting of course experts in breast diagnosis 5 May 2007 in Frankfurt am Main--topic: microcalcinosis. Rofo 180(1):66–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schimpfle MP, Heindel W, Kettritz U, Schulz-Wendtland R, Bick U (2010) Consensus Meeting of Course Directors in Breast Imaging, 9 May 2009, in Frankfurt am Main – Topic: Masses. Rofo 182(8):671–675

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schimpfle M, Graf O, Madjar H, Fuchsjäger M, Golatta M et al. (2016) Diskussionspapier – BI-RADS die 5. – eine Kurzmitteilung aus deutsch-österreichischer Sicht. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 76(5):490–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program – the Oslo II Study. Radiology 232(1):197–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza FH, Wendland EM, Rosa MI, Polanczyk CA (2013) Is full-field digital mammography more accurate than screen-film mammography in overall population screening? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 22(3):217–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L (2012) Teaching Atlas of Mammography. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, Rathfon GY, Lu AH, Gur D (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 266(1):89–95

    Google Scholar 

Literatur Kap. 4.8 und 4.9

  • American College of Radiology (2016) ACR BI-RADS®-Atlas der Mammadiagnostik. Übersetzung der 5. englischen Ausgabe. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Schreer I (1996) Bildgebende Mammadiagnostik. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Willemin (1972) Les images mammographiques. Karger, Basel

    Google Scholar 

Literatur zu Kap. 4.10

    Literatur zu Kap. 4.10.1–4.10.3

    • Boncz I, Sebestyen A, Dobrossy L, Pentek Z, Budai A, Kovacs A, Dozsa C, Ember I (2007) The organisation and results of first screening round of the Hungarian nationwide organised breast cancer screening programme. Ann Oncology 18,4 :795–9

      Google Scholar 

    • Gershon-Cohen J, Ingleby H (1958) Roentgen survey of asymptomatic breasts. Surgery 43:408–414

      Google Scholar 

    • Giordano I, Giorgi D, Piccini P, Ventura I, Stefanini V, Senore C, Paci E, Segnan N (2008) Time trends of process and impact indicators in Italian breast screening programmes – 1996-2005. Epidemiol Prev 32(2)1:23–36

      Google Scholar 

    • Hofvins S, Ursin G, Tretli S et al (2013) Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. Cancer 119:3106–3112

      Google Scholar 

    • IARC (2002) Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Volume 7: Breast Cancer Screening. Chapter Use of breast cancer screening, pp. 47–86. IARC Press, Lyon

      Google Scholar 

    • Kooperationsgemeinschaft Mammographie (2009) Evaluationsbericht 2005-2007. Ergebnisse des Mammographie-Screening Programms in Deutschland. Köln

      Google Scholar 

    • Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880

      Google Scholar 

    • Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (Hrsg) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th edition European Communities Luxembourg, European Commission, 2006

      Google Scholar 

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

      Google Scholar 

    • Sarkela T (2008) Performance and Effectiveness of Organised Breast Cancer Screening in Finland. Dissertation. Universität Tampere, Finnland, S. 27

      Google Scholar 

    • Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L (1971) Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA 215:1777–1785

      Google Scholar 

    • Shapiro S, Venet W, Venet L et al (1982) Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 69:349–355

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: Updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3–14

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: Randomized trial in a population-based screening program – The Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading: The Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884

      Google Scholar 

    • Tabar L, Chen HH T, Amy Yen MF et al (2004) Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14 mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 101:1745–1759

      Google Scholar 

    • Tabar L, Fagerberg CJG, Gad A et al (1985) Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Lancet I:829–832

      Google Scholar 

    • Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HHT, et al (2001) Beyond randomized controlled trials. Organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91:1724–1731

      Google Scholar 

    Literatur zu Kap. 4.10.4

    • Heidinger O, Batzler WU, Krieg V et al (2012) The incidence of interval cancers in the German mammography screening program – results from the population-based cancer registry in North Rhine–Westphalia. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109(46):781–787

      Google Scholar 

    • Hense H-W, Katalinic A, Lebau A et al (2011) Verfahren zur Bewertung der Wirksamkeit des Deutschen Mammographie-Screening-Programms auf die Senkung der Sterblichkeit durch Brustkrebs: Stellungnahme des Wissenschaftlichen Gremiums des Beirates der Kooperationsgemeinschaft Mammographie, http://www.mammo-programm.de/cms_upload/datenpool/phasen_mortalitaetsevaluation_wiss_gremium_stellungnahme.pdf

    • Kooperationsgemeinschaft Mammographie (2015) Evaluationsbericht 2005–2012 – Ergebnis- und Prozessqualität im deutschen Mammographie-Screening- Programm. Berlin, August 2015 http://fachservice.mammo-programm.de/download/Mammographiescreening_Evaluationsbericht_2005%20bis%202012.pdf

    • Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E (2005) Diagnostic Performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–83

      Google Scholar 

    • Simbrich A, Wellmann I, Heidrich J, Heidinger O, Hense HW (2016) Trends in advanced breast cancer incidence rates after implementation of a mammography screening program in a German population. Cancer Epidemiol 44:44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2016.07.006. Epub 2016 Jul 25

    • Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program – the Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204

      Google Scholar 

    • Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Ascunce N et al (2010) A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur J Cancer Prev 19:87–93, DOI: 10. 1097/CEJ. 0b013e32833548ed

      Google Scholar 

    Literatur zu Kap. 4.10.5

    • Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163

      Google Scholar 

    • Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A et al (2008) Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 44:539–544

      Google Scholar 

    • Deutsches Konsortium, familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs (2016) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinien für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, Langversion 3.0, 2012

      Google Scholar 

    • Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM et al (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 265:59–69

      Google Scholar 

    • Kriege M, Brekelmans CTM, Boetes C et al (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427–437

      Google Scholar 

    • Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492

      Google Scholar 

    • Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476

      Google Scholar 

    • Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, Weinbrenner S, Albert US (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breastultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 9:335. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-335

    • Oberaigner W, Buchberger W, Frede T, et al (2011) Introduction of organised mammography screening in Tyrol: results of a one-year pilot phase. BMC Public Health 11:91

      Google Scholar 

    • Weigel S, Biesheuvel C, Berkemeyer S, Kugel H, Heindel W (2013) Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment? Eur Radiol 23(3):648–691

      Google Scholar 

    Literatur zu Kap. 4.10.6

    • Aarøe J, Lindahl T, Dumeaux V et al (2010) Gene expression profiling of peripheral blood cells for early detection of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 12:R71–11

      Google Scholar 

    • Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D et al (2006) High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (Positron Emission Mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 12:309–323

      Google Scholar 

    • Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589

      Google Scholar 

    • Fang Q, Selb J, Carp SA et al (2011) Combined optical and X-ray tomosynthesis breast imaging. Radiology 258:89–97

      Google Scholar 

    • Freer TW, Ulissey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: Prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781–786

      Google Scholar 

    • Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507

      Google Scholar 

    • Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MGC, et al (2008) Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359:1675–1684

      Google Scholar 

    • Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. Am J Roentgenol AJR 203:1–7

      Google Scholar 

    • Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700

      Google Scholar 

    • Hofvind S, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD et al (2009) Screening-detected breast cancers: Discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253:652–660

      Google Scholar 

    • Kalender WA, Beister M, Boone JM et al (2012) High-resolution spiral CT of the breast at very low dose: concept and feasibility considerations. Eur Radiol 22:1–8

      Google Scholar 

    • Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS et al (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742

      Google Scholar 

    • Kopans DB (2004) Sonography should not be used for breast cancer screening until its efficacy has been proven scientifically. Am J Roentgenol 182:489–491

      Google Scholar 

    • Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: An observational study. Am J Roentgenol AJR 200:1401–1408

      Google Scholar 

    • Schneider P, Piper S, Schmitz CH et al (2011) Fast 3D near-infrared breast imaging using indocyanine green for detection and characterization of breast lesions. Fortschr Roentgenstr 183:956–963

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: Comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013a) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al (2013b) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB et al (2015) Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study. Acta Radiol 56:404–412

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Hofvind S et al (2012) Mammography screening using independent double reading with consensus: Is there a potential benefit for computer-aided detection? Acta Radiol 53:241–248

      Google Scholar 

    • Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S, et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol 188:377–384

      Google Scholar 

    • Wang H-Y, Jiang Y-X, Zhu Q-L et al (2012) Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions : A comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. Eur J Radiol 81:3190–3200

      Google Scholar 

    • Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M et al (2008) Automated breast ultrasound: Lesion detection and BI-RADS classification – a pilot study. Fortschr Roentgenstr 180:804–808

      Google Scholar 

    • Williams MB, Judy PG, Gunn S et al (2010) Dual-modality breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 255:191–198

      Google Scholar 

    • Zhi W, Gu X, Qin J et al (2012) Solid breast lesions: Clinical experience with US-guided diffuse optical tomography combined with conventional US. Radiology 262:371–378

      Google Scholar 

    • Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271:664–671

      Google Scholar 

    Literatur zu Kap. 4.10.7

    • Bredal IS, Kåresen R, Skaane P et al (2013) Recall mammography and psychological distress. Eur J Cancer 49:805–811

      Google Scholar 

    • Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EAM, Ravesteyn NT et al (2011) Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev 33:111–121

      Google Scholar 

    • Gur D, Sumkin JH (2013) Screening for early detection of breast cancer: Overdiagnosis versus suboptimal patient management. Radiology 268:327–328

      Google Scholar 

    • Hofvind S, Thoresen S, Tretli S (2004) The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. Cancer 101:1501–1507

      Google Scholar 

    • Jørgensen KJ, Keen JD, Gøtzsche PC (2011) Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? Radiology 260:621–627

      Google Scholar 

    • Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G et al (2012) Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen 19(1):42–56

      Google Scholar 

    Download references

    Author information

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Radiologie am Herkomerplatz, Oberföhringer Straße 2, 81679, München

      PD Dr. med. Boris Adamietz

    2. RADIO-LOG, Schießstattweg 60, 94032, Passau

      Dr. med. Ulrike Aichinger

    3. Referenzzentrum Mammographie SüdWest, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Bahnhofstraße 7, 35037, Marburg

      Dr. med. Karin Bock

    4. Radiologisches Institut, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 1, 91054, Erlangen

      Dr. med. Barbara Brehm, PD Dr. med. Martina Meier-Meitinger & Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Manfred Säbel

    5. Hermann Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Göttingen

      Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Peter Hermann

    6. Radiologisches Institut/Gynäkologische Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Universitätsstraße 21–23, 91054, Erlangen

      Dr. med. Maria Schürmann, Prof. Dr. med. Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland, Prof. Dr. med. Martina Wabel & PD Dr. med. Evelyn Wenkel

    7. Department of Radiology, Oslo University Hospital Ullevaal, Kirkeveien 166, 0450, Oslo, Norwegen

      Prof. Dr. med. Per Skaane

    Authors
    1. PD Dr. med. Boris Adamietz
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Dr. med. Ulrike Aichinger
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Dr. med. Karin Bock
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Dr. med. Barbara Brehm
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Peter Hermann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. PD Dr. med. Martina Meier-Meitinger
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Manfred Säbel
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Dr. med. Maria Schürmann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    9. Prof. Dr. med. Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    10. Prof. Dr. med. Per Skaane
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    11. Prof. Dr. med. Martina Wabel
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    12. PD Dr. med. Evelyn Wenkel
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding authors

    Correspondence to K.-P. Hermann , M. Säbel , K.-P. Hermann , M. Säbel , K.-P. Hermann , M. Säbel , M. Wabel , M. Schürmann , R. Schulz-Wendtland , B. Brehm , R. Schulz-Wendtland , M. Meier-Meitinger , E. Wenkel , M. Meier-Meitinger , E. Wenkel , B. Adamietz , B. Adamietz , U. Aichinger , R. Schulz-Wendtland , R. Schulz-Wendtland , U. Aichinger , R. Schulz-Wendtland , U. Aichinger , B. Adamietz , B. Adamietz , B. Adamietz , K. Bock , R. Schulz-Wendtland , P. Skaane , R. Schulz-Wendtland , P. Skaane , R. Schulz-Wendtland , P. Skaane , R. Schulz-Wendtland , P. Skaane , K. Bock , R. Schulz-Wendtland , P. Skaane , R. Schulz-Wendtland , P. Skaane , R. Schulz-Wendtland or P. Skaane .

    Editor information

    Editors and Affiliations

    1. Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany

      Volker F. Duda

    2. Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany

      Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Adamietz, B. et al. (2017). Mammographie. In: Duda, V., Schulz-Wendtland, R. (eds) Mammadiagnostik. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54263-7_4

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54263-7_4

    • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54262-0

    • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54263-7

    • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation