I read with great interest the article by Dr. Richard Chesbrough, "Mammographic markers may lead to confusion and liability" (March 2005, page 27). This well-crafted article clearly articulates the need for standardization for mammographic markers. I was struck by the strict adherence to marking the breast: "Palpable abnormalities are marked with a discrete radiopaque triangle. There is no deviation from these marking devices, and every marking device placed on the breast is also noted by the technologist."
I read with great interest the article by Dr. Richard Chesbrough, "Mammographic markers may lead to confusion and liability" (March 2005, page 27). This well-crafted article clearly articulates the need for standardization for mammographic markers. I was struck by the strict adherence to marking the breast: "Palpable abnormalities are marked with a discrete radiopaque triangle. There is no deviation from these marking devices, and every marking device placed on the breast is also noted by the technologist."
But there is a further step that should be taken: When patients with palpable abnormalities go through screening examinations, the technologist should flag these cases, since these are truly diagnostic cases.
The mindset for interpreting and providing a report for a screening examination and for a diagnostic examination is very different; while screening is an exercise in detection, the diagnostic examination is frequently an exercise in detection and diagnosis. A negative screening mammogram report conclusion might read, "No mammographic evidence of malignancy. Recommend annual screening." A true diagnostic mammogram (even though a screening mammogram was requested) should read, "No mammographic evidence of malignancy. Management of the patient's reported palpable abnormality should be based on physical examination and degree of clinical concern." Perhaps a more proactive conclusion might read, "No mammographic evidence of malignancy. Patient will be recalled for physical examination aided with ultrasound for further diagnostic evaluation, and an additional report will follow."
Providing standardization for mammographic markers is very important; however, making sure the radiologist realizes the case represents a diagnostic patient remains critical. I would strongly advise that mammographic examinations for patients with a palpable abnormality (diagnostic patients) not be commingled with screening mammographic examinations for asymptomatic patients (screening patients).
-Richard L. Ellis, M.D.
Co-director, Norma J. Vinger Center for Breast Care
Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center, La Crosse, WI
Can Portable Dual-Energy X-Ray be a Viable Alternative to CT in the ICU?
September 13th 2024The use of a portable dual-energy X-ray detector in the ICU at one community hospital reportedly facilitated a 37.5 percent decrease in chest CT exams in comparison to the previous three months, according to research presented at the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) meeting in Washington, D.C.
New Meta-Analysis Examines MRI Assessment for Treatment of Esophageal Cancer
September 12th 2024Diffusion-weighted MRI provided pooled sensitivity and specificity rates of 82 percent and 81 percent respectively for gauging patient response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer, according to new meta-analysis.
Study for Emerging PET/CT Agent Reveals ‘New Standard’ for Detecting Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
September 11th 2024Results from a multicenter phase 3 trial showed that the PET/CT imaging agent (89Zr)Zr-girentuximab had an 85.5 percent mean sensitivity rate for the diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Can Radiomics and Autoencoders Enhance Real-Time Ultrasound Detection of Breast Cancer?
September 10th 2024Developed with breast ultrasound data from nearly 1,200 women, a model with mixed radiomic and autoencoder features had a 90 percent AUC for diagnosing breast cancer, according to new research.