Breast Imaging and Image-Guided Biopsy Techniques

  • Marie GanottEmail author
  • Brandy Griffith
  • Scott M. Rudzinski


Breast imaging is an essential component of breast cancer diagnosis and guides surgery and treatment options. Imaging techniques, such as mammography, ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), enable the detection of breast cancer at earlier stages. Mammography remains the standard screening examination; however, additional imaging studies are useful in evaluating the breast. US is utilized primarily in the diagnostic setting in order to characterize mammographic or palpable findings and assess axillary lymph nodes. Supplemental screening US may also be useful to increase cancer detection in patients with intermediate risk for developing breast cancer and dense breasts. In addition to mammography, high-risk patients may have supplemental annual screening with MRI or screening ultrasound if they are unable to undergo MRI. MRI is also performed to evaluate the extent of disease, the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and silicone implant integrity. In addition, these imaging modalities are also used to guide percutaneous biopsy, enabling minimally invasive tissue diagnosis. At this time, there is insufficient evidence to support the screening use of investigational imaging modalities, such as nuclear medicine breast imaging and positron emission mammography (PEM). However, these topics are briefly discussed for completeness.


3D mammogram Aspiration BI-RADS Bracketing Breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) Computed tomography (CT) Diagnostic Elastography High-risk screening Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Mammogram Molecular breast imaging (MBI) Nuclear medicine breast imaging Positron emission mammography (PEM) Radioactive seed Stereotactic Tomosynthesis Ultrasound (US) Wire localization 


  1. 1.
    Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260(3):658–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coldman A, Phillips N, Warren L, Kan L. Breast cancer mortality after screening mammography in British Columbia women. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(5):1076–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ACR practice guidelines for the performance of screening and diagnostic mammography. Amended 2014 (Resolution 39).
  4. 4.
    Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW. ACR BI-RADS® mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles DA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241(1):55–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):362–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257(1):246–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ursin G, Ma H, Wu AH, Bernstein L, Salane M, Parisky YR, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer in three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2003;12:332–8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:670–5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2004;230:29–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:11159–69.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Day N, Luben R. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme. J Med Screen. 1998;5:207–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Gils CH, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH. Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: masking bias or causality? Eur J Epidemiol. 1998;14:315–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berg WA. Special topics. In: Berg WB, Yang WT, editors. Diagnostic imaging breast, vol. 8. 2nd ed. Manitoba: Amirsys; 2014. p. 98–100.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dialani V, Baum J, Mehta TS. Sonographic features of gynecomastia. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29(4):539–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Günhan-Bilgen I, Bozkaya H, Ustün E, Memiş A. Male breast disease: clinical, mammographic, and ultrasonographic features. Eur J Radiol. 2002;43(3):246–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goss PE, Reid C, Pintilie M, Lim R, Miller N. Male breast carcinoma: a review of 229 patients who presented to the Princess Margaret Hospital during 40 years: 1955–1996. Cancer. 1996;85(3):629–39.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Symmers WS. Carcinoma of breast in trans-sexual individuals after surgical and hormonal interference with the primary and secondary sex characteristics. Br Med J. 1968;2(5597):83–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chantra PK, So GJ, Wollman JS, Bassett LW. Mammography of the male breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164(4):853–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shi AA, Georgian-Smith D, Cornell LD, Rafferty EA, Staffa M, Hughes K, et al. Radiological reasoning: male breast mass with calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(6 Suppl):S205–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen L, Chantra PK, Larsen LH, Barton P, Rohitopakarn M, Zhu EQ, et al. Imaging characteristics of malignant lesions of the male breast. Radiographics. 2006;26(4):993–1006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adibelli ZH, Oztekin O, Gunhan-Bilgen I, Postaci H, Uslu A, Ilhan E. Imaging characteristics of male breast disease. Breast J. 2010;16(5):510–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. NCCN Guidelines Version 1. 2017.
  27. 27.
    Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(1):18–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    American Cancer Society. Detailed guide: breast cancer. Accessed 4 Feb 2013.
  29. 29.
    Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, Arand B, Bieling H, König R, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1450–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244(2):356–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, ACRIN 6666 Investigators, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a singles screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1394–404.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Berg WA. Screening and management. In: Berg WA, Yang WT, editors. Diagnostic imaging breast. 2nd ed. Manitoba: Amirsys; 2014. p. 9–45.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Loving VA, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Targeted ultrasound in women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms: outcomes analyses and management implications. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1472–7.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harper AP, Kelly-Fry E, Noe JS, Bies JR, Jackson VP. Ultrasound in the evaluation of solid breast masses. Radiology. 1983;146(3):731–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Berg WA. Screening and management. In: Berg WA, Yang WT, editors. Diagnostic imaging breast. 2nd ed. Manitoba: Amirsys; 2014. p. 9–38.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1394–404.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09–41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Geisel J, Raghu M, Hooley R. The role of ultrasound in breast cancer screening: the case for and against ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2018;39:25–34.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):734–42.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilczek B, Wilzcek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K. Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: report from a hospital-based, high volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(9):1554–63.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brem RF, Tabar L, Duffy SW, Inciardi MF, Guingrich JA, Hashimoto BE, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight study. Radiology. 2015;274(3):663–73.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3PA):408–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Berg WA. Screening and management. In: Berg WA, Yang WT, editors. Diagnostic imaging breast, vol. 9. 2nd ed. Manitoba: Amirsys; 2014. p. 44–6.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M, Kimijima I, Okumoto T, Seiji K, et al. Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics. 2010;30(5):1183–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006;238(1):42–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):485–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004;292:2735–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    American College of Radiology practice guideline for the performance of contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the breast: 2013 Accessed 20 Nov 2013.
  50. 50.
    de Bresser J, de Vos B, van der Ent F, Hulsewé K. Breast MRI in clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer presenting with an axillary metastasis: a systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(2):114–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Olson JA Jr, Morris EA, Van Zee KJ, Linehan DC, Borgen PI. Magnetic resonance imaging facilitates breast conservation for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:411–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Abe H, Schmidt RA, Shah RN, Shimauchi A, Kulkarni K, Sennett CA, et al. MRI-directed (“Second-Look”) ultrasound examination for breast lesions detected initially on MRI: MR and sonographic findings. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):370–7.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Meissnitzer M, Dershaw DD, Lee CH, Morris EA. Targeted ultrasound of the breast in women with abnormal MRI findings for whom biopsy has been recommended. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):1025–9.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lehman CD, Gastonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1295–303.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995;197:743–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, Hochman MG, Solin LJ, Fowble BL, et al. Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology. 1995;196:115–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR Imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:901–10.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Houssami N, Turner R, Macaskill P, Turnbull LW, McCready DR, Tuttle T, et al. An individual person data meta-analysis of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(5):392–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fischer U, Zachariae O, Baum F, von Heyden D, Funke M, Liersch T. The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(10):1725–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hakim CM, Ganott MA, Vogia A, Sumkin JH. Breast imaging for pathologists. In: Dabbs DJ, editor. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Saunders (Elsevier); 2012. p. 133.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, Soo MS, Bentley RC, Yu D, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(5):1275–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, Moy L, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(3):868–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lobbes MB, Prevos R, Smidt M, Tjan-Heijnen VC, van Goethem M, Schipper R, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(2):163–75.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lee JM, Orel SG, Czerniecki BJ, Solin LJ, Schnall MD. MRI before re excision surgery in patients with breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:473–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Chapter 13: Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. ACR Manual on Contrast Media. Version 9. 2013:81–9.
  68. 68.
    Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269(3):694–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Parel BK, Lobbes MB, Lewin J. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: a review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2018;39:70–9.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK. Breast radiation dose with CESM compared with 2 D FFDM and 3 D tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(2):362–72.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fallenberg EM, Droman C, Diekman F, Renz DM, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):371–81.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YK, Yeow KM, Huang PC, Lo YF, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2394–403.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lewin J. Comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2018;26(2):259–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Vreugdenburg TD, Willis CD, Mundy L, Hiller JE. A systematic review of elastography, electrical impedance scanning, and digital infrared thermography for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;137(3):665–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Doré CJ, Schäfer FK, Svensson WE, Hooley RJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology. 2012;262(2):435–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sun Y, Wei W, Yang HW, Liu JL. Clinical usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality to mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(3):450–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Conners AL, Maxwell RW, Tortorelli CL, Hruska CB, Rhodes DJ, Boughey JC, et al. Gamma camera breast imaging lexicon. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(6):W767–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kim BS. Usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality in breast cancer patients with dense breast: a comparative study with MRI. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:131–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Huppe AI, Mehta AK, Brem RF. Molecular breast imaging: a comprehensive review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2018;39(1):60–9.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Glass SB, Shah ZA. Clinical utility of positron emission mammography. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2013;26(3):314–9.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mammography: feature analysis and rates of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):956–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Caldarella C, Treglia G, Giordano A. Diagnostic performance of dedicated positron emission mammography using flourin-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in women with suspicious breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(4):241–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Hovanessian Larsen L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI in the contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:219–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Hovanessian Larsen L, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258(1):59–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Caudry DJ, Sneige N, Frable WJ, Berg WA, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V. Radiology. 2001;219(3):785–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Tsimikas J, Sneige N, Frable WJ, Gatsonis CA, et al. Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigators. Cancer. 1998;82(4):679–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Berg WA. Image-guided breast biopsy and management of high-risk lesions. Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;42(5):935–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Oh KK. Sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: a review of 2,420 cases with long-term follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(1):202–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Harvey JR, Lim Y, Murphy J, Howe M, Morris J, Goyal A, et al. Safety and feasibility of breast lesion localization using magnetic seeds (Magseed): a multi-center, open label cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169:531–6.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mango VL, Wynn RT, Feldman S, Friedlander L, Desperito E, Patel SN, et al. Beyond wires and seeds: reflector-guided breast lesion localization and excision. Radiology. 2017;284:365–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Ganott
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brandy Griffith
    • 2
  • Scott M. Rudzinski
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens HospitalPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyThe Ohio State University, Wexner Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  3. 3.Windsong Radiology GroupWilliamsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations