Breast markers are important, but so is separating screening, diagnostic cases
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
Seven Takeaways from Meta-Analysis of PSMA Radiotracers for Prostate Cancer Imaging
December 1st 2023In a newly published meta-analysis of 24 studies, researchers noted that the PSMA PET radiotracer 18F PSMA-1007 may provide more benefit than 68Ga Ga-PSMA-11 for primary staging of patients with prostate cancer and detection of local lesion recurrence, but also has drawbacks with higher liver uptake and multiple reports of false positive bone lesions.
Study: Regular Mammography Screening Reduces Breast Cancer Mortality Risk by More than 70 Percent
November 30th 2023Consistent adherence to the five most recent mammography screenings prior to a breast cancer diagnosis reduced breast cancer death risk by 72 percent in comparison to women who did not have the mammography screening, according to new research findings presented at the annual Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) conference.
Chest CT Study Shows Higher Emphysema Risk from Combination of Marijuana and Cigarette Smoking
November 28th 2023People who smoke marijuana and cigarettes have 12 times the risk for centrilobular emphysema than non-smokers, according to new computed tomography (CT) research presented at the annual Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) conference.
