Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mammography

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Breast Cancer Risk Reduction and Early Detection

  • 1411 Accesses

Abstract

Mammography is one of an array of breast imaging modalities used to evaluate women with clinical breast symptoms, and its utility for this is well established. However, it is as a screening tool that mammography makes its unique contribution to the detection and treatment of early breast cancer, and it is in this role that it has received the most visibility and, sometimes, controversy. Despite its limitations, namely decreased sensitivity in premenopausal women and in women with radiographically dense breast parenchyma, mammography remains the only imaging modality that is proven to reduce breast cancer mortality.

This chapter discusses mammography from its historic perspective as well as from the perspective of the larger topic of screening for preclinical disease. Structured mammography screening programs are generally most effective for the detection of non-palpable breast cancer while minimizing false positive studies. Digital and film screen mammography are different acquisition methods of the same imaging study and, overall, demonstrate equivalent effectiveness in the detection of breast cancer. Radiographic breast density and its relevance to breast cancer detection and breast cancer risk has been extensively studied and continues to be a topic for research and debate. Digital breast tomography is an application of digital mammography that is still a research tool but shows promise for increasing the accuracy of mammography. The American College of Radiology (ACR) has developed a lexicon to report mammograms, based on standardized criteria for interpretation of mammographic findings. Research has demonstrated that when radiologists adhere to these criteria, they increase their cancer detection rate. The evaluation of mammography findings is presented, using the ACR lexicon.

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

References

  1. Gold RH. The evolution of mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30(1):1–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen THH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: What have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42(5):793–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Black WC, Welch HG. Screening for disease. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:3–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Obuchowski NA, Ruffin RJ, Baker ME, Powell KA. Ten criteria for effective screening: their application to multislice CT screening for pulmonary and colorectal cancers. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1357–1362.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schrading S, Kuhl CK. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;246:58–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Collett K, Stefansson IM, Eide SJ, et al. A basal epithelial phenotype is more frequent in interval breast cancers compared with screen detected tumors. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. May 2005;14(5):1108–1112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zahl P-H, Maehlen J, Gilbert Welch H. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med. Nov 2008;168(21):2311–2316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: Prospective Multi-Institution Breast Cancer Screening Study. Radiology. 2007;244:381–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, Glasziou P. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ. 2006;332:678–679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gold RH. The history of breast imaging. In: Bassett LW, Jackson VP, Fu KL, Fu YS, eds. Diagnosis of Diseases of the Breast. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2005: 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241:55–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schell MJ, Yankaskas BC, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. Radiology. 2007;243:681–689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Burnside ES, Park JM, Fine JP, Sisney GA. The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:790–796.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gur D, Wallace LP, Klym AH, et al. Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice. Radiology. 2005;235:396–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Robertson C. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. Radiology. 1993;187:75–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology. 1990;175:323.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology. 2002;224:861–869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liberman L, Fahs MC, Dershaw DD, et al. Impact of stereotactic core breast biopsy on cost of diagnosis. Radiology. 1995;195:633–637.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology. 1998;208:717–723.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L, et al. US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: Results of a validation study in 1352 cases. Radiology. 2008;248:406–413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA, Weinstein SP. Evaluation of proscriptive health care policy implementation in screening mammography. Radiology. 2003;229:534–540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne JP. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ. 2006;332:689–692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kopans DB. Mammography screening and the controversy concerning women aged 40–49. Radiol Clin N Am. Nov 1995;33(6):1273–1290.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Houn F, Elliott ML, McCrohan JL. The mammography quality standards act of 1992: History and philosophy. Radiol Clin N Am. Nov 1995;33(6):1059–1066.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hendricks RE. Quality assurance in mammography: Accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards. Radiol Clin N Am. Jan 1992;30(1):243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1493–1499.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:209–213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kopans DB. Standardized mammography reporting. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30(1):257–264.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. American College of Radiology: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Reston, VA, American College of Radiology, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology. 2002;222:529–535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Berg WA, D’Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, et al. Does training in the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology. 2002;224:871–880.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology. 1989;171:645.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology. 2001;219:475–483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mahesh M. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: Digital mammography: An overview. RadioGraphics. 2004;24:1747–1760.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of oslo ii study. Radiology. 2007;244:708–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading – Oslo I Study. Radiology. 2003;229:877–884.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lambertz CK, Johnson CJ, Montgomery PG, Maxwell JR. Premedication to reduce discomfort during screening mammography. Radiology. 2008;248:765–772.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Eklund GW, Busby RC, Miller SH, Job JS. Improved imaging of the augmented breast. Am J Roentgenol. 1988;151:469–473.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wolfe JN. Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 1976;126:1130–1139.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wolfe JN. Breast patterns. Am J Roentgenol. Apr 1977;128:703.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Martin LJ, Boyd NF. Mammographic density. Potential mechanisms of breast cancer risk associated with mammographic density: hypotheses based on epidemiological evidence. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(1):201: Epub 2008 Jan 9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. McCormack VA, Perry N, Vinnicombe SJ, dos Santos SI. Ethnic variations in mammographic density: a British multiethnic longitudinal study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(4):412–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kopans DB. Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2008;246(2):348–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cardenosa G. Breast Imaging Companion. 2nd ed. Philadelphia:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bassett LW. Imaging of breast masses. Radiol Clin N Am. 2000;38(4):669–692.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bassett LW. Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Radiol Clin N Am. 1992;30(1):93–106.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kopans DB. Breast Imaging. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Park JM, Franken EA, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT. Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. RadioGraphics. 2007;27:S231–S240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol. Dec 2008;18(12):2817–2825:Epub 2008 Jul 19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol. Sep 2007;189(3):616–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Adler G, Garbay JR, Delaloge S. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. Sep 12, 2008:[Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003;228:842–850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: Feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229:261–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, et al. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast enhanced digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol. Nov 2006;187(5):W528–W537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lewin JM, Niklason L. Advanced applications of digital mammography: tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol. Oct 2007;42(4):243–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA

    Barbara C. Cavanaugh

  2. Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 19107, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Sorcha McNally

Authors
  1. Barbara C. Cavanaugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sorcha McNally
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara C. Cavanaugh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of North Dakota, N. Columbia Road 501, Grand Forks, 58203, U.S.A.

    Edward R. Sauter

  2. Dept. Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Cottman Ave. 333, Philadelphia, 19111-2497, U.S.A.

    Mary B. Daly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cavanaugh, B.C., McNally, S. (2010). Mammography. In: Sauter, E., Daly, M. (eds) Breast Cancer Risk Reduction and Early Detection. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87583-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87583-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-87582-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-87583-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation