Needle Localization for Excisional Biopsy of Breast Lesions: Comparison of Effect of Use of Full-Field Digital versus Screen-Film Mammographic Guidance on Procedure Time

Radiology

Volumn 231, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 277-281

  Yang, Wei Tse ^a   Whitman, Gary J ^a   Johnson, Marcella M ^a   Bolanos Clark, Mercedes ^a   Kushwaha, Anne C ^a   Hunt, Kelly K ^a   Dempsey, Peter J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms, localization; Breast radiography; Breast radiography, comparative studies; Breast, biopsy; Radiography, digital

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASPIRATION BIOPSY; BODY POSITION; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SCREEN FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TIME; TUMOR LOCALIZATION;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; TIME FACTORS; WOMEN'S HEALTH; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 1642335745     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2311030081     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R, Mravunac M, Sturmans F, Day NE. Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. Lancet 1984; 1:1222-1224.
2. Howard J. Using mammography for cancer control: an unrealized potential. CA Cancer J Clin 1987; 37:33-48.
3. Dershaw DD, Fleischman RC, Liberman L, Deutch B, Abramson AF, Hann L. Use of digital mammography in needle localization procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:559-562.
4. Siewerdsen JH, Antonuk LE, El-Mohri Y, Yorkston J, Huang W, Cunningham IA. Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology. Med Phys 1998; 25:614-628.
5. Zhao W, Rowlands JA. Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: theoretical analysis of detective quantum efficiency. Med Phys 1997; 24:1819-1833.
6. Chan HP, Helvie MA, Petrick N. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications. Acad Radiol 2001; 8:454-466.
7. Rong XJ, Shaw CC, Johnston DA, et al. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel CCD, CR, and screen-film. Med Phys 2002; 29:2052-2061.
8. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218:873-880.
9. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:671-677.
10. Whitlock JP, Evans AJ, Burrell HC, et al. Digital imaging improves upright stereotactic core biopsy of mammographic microcalcifications. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 374-377.
11. Becker L, Taves D, McCurdy L, Muscedere G, Karlik S, Ward S. Stereotactic core biopsy of breast microcalcifications: comparison of film versus digital mammography, both using an add-on unit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:1451-1457.
12. Caines JS, McPhee MD, Konok GP, Wright BA. Stereotaxic needle core biopsy of breast lesions using a regular mammographic table with an adaptable stereotaxic device. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163:317-321.
13. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Abramson AF, Deutch BM, Hann LE. Stereotaxic 14-gauge breast biopsy: how many core biopsy specimens are needed? Radiology 1994; 192:793-795.