Breast Imaging

  • Julia A. Birnbaum
  • Emily F. Conant
Part of the Current Clinical Oncology book series (CCO)


The combination of high-quality breast imaging and improved compliance with screening mammography guidelines has begun to alter the course of breast cancer and its mortality rates in the United States. Although film-screen mammography remains the foundation of breast imaging, other modalities such as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), nuclear medicine, and digital mammography are now included in the radiologist’s armementarium to allow earlier detection and diagnosis of this all too common disease.


Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Digital Mammography Breast Image Glandular Tissue Architectural Distortion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



  1. ACR Standard for the Performance of Breast Ultrasound Examination (1999) American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, pp. 339–342.Google Scholar
  2. ACR Standard for the Performance of Diagnostic Mammography (1999) American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, pp. 43–46.Google Scholar
  3. ACR Standard for the Performance of Screening Mammography (1999) American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
  4. Bassett LW (1995) Clinical image evalution. Radiol. Clin. North. Am. 33, 1027–1039.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardenosa G, Eklund GW (1995) Screening mammography in women 40–49 years old. AJR 164, 1104–1106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conant EF, Maidment ADA (1996) Breast cancer imaging. Sci. Am. Sci. Med. 3, 22–31.Google Scholar
  7. Dershaw DD (1995) Mammography in patients with breast cancer treated by breast conservation (lumpectomy with or without radiation). AJR 164, 309–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Feig SA (1998) Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADSTM), 3rd ed. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  9. Evans WP (1995) Breast masses: appropriate evaluation. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 33, 1085–1108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Feig SA (1988) Importance of supplementary mammographie views to diagnostic accuracy. AJR 151, 40–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hogge JP, Robinson RE, Magnant CM, Zuurbier RA (1995) The mammographie spectrum of fat necrosis of the breast. Radiographies 15, 1347–1356.Google Scholar
  12. Kopans DB (1998) Breast Imaging, 2nd ed. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  13. Krecke KN, Gisvold JJ (1993) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographie findings and extent of disease at diagnosis in 184 patients. AJR 161, 957–960.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mendelson EB (1992) Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol. Clin. or North Am. 30, 107–138.Google Scholar
  15. RSNA Categorical Course in Breast Imaging Syllabus (1995). Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, IL.Google Scholar
  16. Sickles EA (1989) Breast masses: mammographie evaluation. Radiology 173, 297–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Sickles EA (1995) Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 33, 1123–1130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA (1995) Solid breast nodules: use of ultrasonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 96, 123–134.Google Scholar

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

  1. Hochman MG, Orel SG, Powell CM, Schnall MD, Reynolds CA, White LN (1997) Fibroadenomas: MR imaging appearances with radiologic-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 204, 123–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG, et al. (1997) Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 202, 833–841.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Orel SG (1998) High-resolution MR imaging for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiographics 18, 903–912.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Orel SG, Hochman MG, Schnall MD, Reynolds CA, Sullivan DC (1996) High-resolution MR imaging of the breast: clinical context. Radiographics 16, 1385–1401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Orel SO, Schnall MD, Powell CM, et al. (1995) Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 96, 115–122.Google Scholar

Nuclear Medicine

  1. Khalkhali I, Iraniha S, Diggles LE, Cutrone JA, Mishkin FS (1997) Scintimammography: the new role of technetium-99m sestamibi imaging for the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Q. J. Nucl. Med. 41, 231–238.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Klaus Ai, Klingensmith WC 3rd, Parker SH, Stavros AT, Sutherland JD, Aldrete KD (2000) Comparative value of 99m Tc-sestamibi scintimammography and sonography in the diagnostic workup of breast masses. AJR 174, 1779–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Palmedo H, Schomburg A, Grunwald F, Mallmann P, Krebs D, Biersack HJ (1996) Technetium-99m-MIBI scintimammography for suspicious breast lesions. J. Nucl. Med. 37, 626–630.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Tolmos J, Cutrone JA, Wang B, et al. (1998) Scintimammographic analysis of nonpalpable breast lesions previously identified by conventional mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90, 846–849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Digital Mammography

  1. Nawano S, Murakami K, Moriyama N, Kobatake H, Takeo H, Shimura K (1999) Computer-aided diagnosis in full digital mammography. Invest. Radiol. 34, 310–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Pisano ED (2000) Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology 214, 26–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia A. Birnbaum
  • Emily F. Conant

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations