Abstract
Following initial mammography imaging (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views) an abnormality may be identified which requires further analysis. Clear mammographic presentation of a lesion or microcalcification is crucial for accurate assessment. Identifiable masses such as cysts, fibroadenomas and larger carcinomas usually proceed to an ultrasound examination without the requirement for further mammographic views [1]. Many masses demonstrated as microcalcification or an asymmetrical density, may not be instantly identifiable on the initial mammograms, and will need further assessment with specialised mammography [2]. The location of the abnormality in the breast can be confirmed by obtaining a lateral view, particularly in the case of microcalcification. This enables the microcalcification to be characterised [3].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK, editors. Diseases of the breast. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2010.
Michell MJ, editor. Breast cancer. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
NHSBSP. Clinical guidelines for breast cancer screening assessment. Publication No. 49 June 2010. 3rd ed. UK: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2010.
Tse GM, Tan P, Cheung HS, Chu WC, Lam WM. Intermediate to highly suspicious calcification in breast lesions: a radio-pathologic correlation. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;110(1):1–7.
Kim MJ, Youk JH, Kang DR, Choi SH, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Kim E-K. Zooming method (x2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications. Br J Radiol. 2010;83(990):486–92.
Koutalonis M, Delis H, Pascoal A, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Panayiotakis G. Can electronic zooming replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol. 2010;83(991):569–77.
McParland BJ. Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography. Br J Radiol. 2000;73(874):1068–77.
Park H-S, Oh Y, Kim S-T, Kim H-J. Effects of breast thickness and lesion location on resolution in digital magnification mammography. Clin Imaging. 2012;36(4):255–62.
Harvey JA, Cohen MA, Brenin DR, Nicholson BT, Adams RB. Breaking bad news: a primer for radiologists in breast imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4(11):800–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hipperson, V.L. (2015). Magnification and Compression Views. In: Hogg, P., Kelly, J., Mercer, C. (eds) Digital Mammography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04831-4_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04831-4_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04830-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04831-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)