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
Strategies to Reduce Disparities in Interventional Radiology Care
March 19th 2025In order to help address the geographic, racial, and socioeconomic barriers that limit patient access to interventional radiology (IR) care, these authors recommend a variety of measures ranging from increased patient and physician awareness of IR to mobile IR clinics and improved understanding of social determinants of health.
The Reading Room Podcast: Current Perspectives on the Updated Appropriate Use Criteria for Brain PET
March 18th 2025In a new podcast, Satoshi Minoshima, M.D., Ph.D., and James Williams, Ph.D., share their insights on the recently updated appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET and tau PET in patients with mild cognitive impairment.
Study: Monitoring of Prostate MRI Exams Could Lead to 75 Percent Reduction of Gadolinium Contrast
March 17th 2025While DCE MRI was deemed helpful in over 67 percent of cases in which it was used, researchers found that monitored prostate MRI exams, which facilitated a 75 percent reduction of DCE MRI sequences, had comparable sensitivity for prostate cancer as non-monitored exams.