Abstract
Breast imaging plays an important role in screening for breast cancer, classifying and sampling nonpalpable breast abnormalities, and defining the extent of breast tumors. Randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated decreased mortality rates in women who undergo mammographic screening compared with unscreened controls. In the past decade, there have been notable improvements in mammographic image quality and positioning. In breast conservation therapy, mammography is used to define the extent of malignancy before definitive segmentectomy and to monitor the breast after surgery and radiation therapy. Percutaneous biopsy techniques have been developed to facilitate safe, accurate tissue acquisition. The use of stereotactic and ultrasound-guided biopsies has resulted in a decrease in the number of surgical biopsies performed. Mammography can also be used to guide needle localizations, most of which, in our practice, are performed to help guide the excision of known cancers. Whereas technetium Tc 99m sestamibi imaging has been reasonably accurate in the evaluation of palpable lesions, sestamibi imaging is thought to be limited in the evaluation of nonpalpable lesions. Magnetic resonance imaging shows promise for detecting breast cancers and defining the extent of disease. Magnetic resonance imaging—guided needle localization and core needle biopsy techniques are being developed, and these techniques should allow for the increased utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of breast cancers. Digital imaging systems offer opportunities for post-processing and reconfiguring of the original data. Digital mammography should result in improved image quality, a lower call-back rate, and, perhaps, a decreased radiation dose.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Suggested Readings
American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (Illustrated BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998.
Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988; 297: 943–948.
Baker KS, Davey DD, Stelling CB. Ductal abnormalities detected with galactography: frequency of adequate excisional biopsy. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: 821–824.
Bassett LW, Gold RH, Mirra JM. Nonneoplastic breast calcifications in lipid cysts: development after excision and primary irradiation. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1982; 138: 335–338.
Bhatia S, Robison LL, Oberlin O, et al. Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 745–751.
Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer 1997; 80: 2091–2099.
Canavese G, Gipponi M, Catturich A, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping opens a new perspective in the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer: a combined approach with vital blue dye lymphatic mapping and radioguided surgery. Semin Surg Oncol 1998; 15: 272–277.
Cardenosa G, Eklund GW. Benign papillary neoplasms of the breast: mammographic findings. Radiology 1991; 181: 751–755.
Chu KC, Smart CR, Tarone RE. Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the Health Insurance Plan clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988; 80: 1125–1132.
Daniel BL, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast lesion localization: a freehand, interactive MR imaging-guided technique. Radiology 1998; 207: 455–463.
Dao TH, Rahmouni A, Campana F, Laurent M, Asselain B, Fourquet A. Tumor recurrence versus fibrosis in the irradiated breast: differentiation with dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1993; 187: 751–755.
Dershaw DD. Mammography in patients with breast cancer treated by breast conservation. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 309–316.
DiPiro PJ, Meyer J, Shaffer K, Denison CM, Frenna TH, Rolfs AT. Usefulness of the routine magnification view after breast conservation therapy for carcinoma. Radiology 1996; 198: 341–343.
Glass EC, Essner R, Giuliano AE. Sentinel node localization in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1999; 29: 57–68.
Gorczyca DP, DeBruhl ND, Ahn CY, et al. Silicone breast implant ruptures in an animal model: comparison of mammography, MR imaging, US, and CT. Radiology 1994; 190: 227–232.
Gorczyca DP, Schneider E, DeBruhl ND, et al. Silicone breast implant rupture: comparison between three-point Dixon and fast spin-echo MR imaging. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: 305–310.
Hillner BE. Decision analysis: MIBI imaging of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1772–1778.
Khalkhali I, Cutrone JA, Mena IG, et al. Scintimammography: the complementary role of Tc-99m sestamibi prone breast imaging for the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Radiology 1995; 196: 421–426.
Khalkhali I, Cutrone J, Mena I, et al. Technetium-99m-sestamibi scintimammography of breast lesions: clinical and pathological follow-up. J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 1784–1789.
Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 755–760.
Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1999. CA Cancer J Clin 1999; 49: 8–31.
Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 1111–1113.
McCrea ES, Johnston C, Haney PJ. Metastases to the breast. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1983; 141: 685–690.
Mendelson EB. Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30: 107–138.
Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study. 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ 1992; 147: 1477–1488.
Miner TJ, Shriver CD, Jaques DP, Maniscalco-Theberge ME, Krag DN. Ultrasonographically guided injection improves localization of the radiolabeled sentinel lymph node in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5: 315–321.
Piwnica-Worms D, Chiu ML, Budding M, Kronauge JF, Kramer RA, Croop JM. Functional imaging of multidrug-resistant P-glycoprotein with an organotechnetium complex. Cancer Res 1993; 53: 977–984.
Reynolds HE. Core needle biopsy of challenging benign breast conditions: a comprehensive literature review. AIR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1245–1250.
Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH III, Smith RA. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancer 1995; 75: 1619–1626.
Stomper PC, Recht A, Berenberg AL, Jochelson MS, Harris JR. Mammographic detection of recurrent cancer in the irradiated breast. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1987; 148: 39–43.
Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30: 187–210.
Taillefer R, Robidoux A, Lambert R, Turpin S, Laperriere J. Technetium-99msestamibi prone scintimammography to detect primary breast cancer and axillary lymph node involvement. J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 1758–1765.
Waxman AD. A perspective on decision analysis modeling as it relates to sestamibi imaging of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1778–1780.
Woods ER, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM, Mandell SH, Chapel KL, Adler DD. Solitary breast papilloma: comparison of mammographic, galactographic, and pathologic findings. AIR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159: 487–491.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Whitman, G.J., Kushwaha, A.C., Monsees, B.S., Stelling, C.B. (2001). Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast, and Radionuclide Imaging of the Breast. In: Hunt, K.K., Robb, G.L., Strom, E.A., Ueno, N.T. (eds) Breast Cancer. M. D. Anderson Cancer Care Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21842-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21842-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-95190-4
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-21842-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive