Clinicians and vendors build bridges in support of digital mammography
I saw the article that you coauthored on the digital breast imaging forum at SCAR ("Breast imagers come out swinging against digital mammography vendors," diagnosticimaging.com/scar2005/, June 7, 2005. An expanded version appears in the SCAR Conference Reporter, this issue, page 54). I am very happy that you were there and interested in digital mammography. Also, I am pleased that you described the struggles we are having on the clinical side so accurately.
I saw the article that you coauthored on the digital breast imaging forum at SCAR ("Breast imagers come out swinging against digital mammography vendors," diagnosticimaging.com/scar2005/, June 7, 2005. An expanded version appears in the SCAR Conference Reporter, this issue, page 54). I am very happy that you were there and interested in digital mammography. Also, I am pleased that you described the struggles we are having on the clinical side so accurately.
However, I feel that your article has misrepresented the tone of the meeting. You state that the vendors were cornered-actually, they were not. Everyone was invited to come, and the agenda was widely available to all, including the vendors, who supported the forum and its goals with time and funding. The vendors have been amazingly willing to help us fix the issues that we are facing. As we continue through this process, factual journalism is important to publicize the developments, but sensationalized coverage just serves to disrupt the fragile bridges that we are all trying to form in order to solve our problems. I feel that your article, while containing some facts, has partially undone some of the partnership that we are working so hard to form.
-Rita Zuley, M.D.
Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic
Rochester, NY
Newsletter
Stay at the forefront of radiology with the Diagnostic Imaging newsletter, delivering the latest news, clinical insights, and imaging advancements for today’s radiologists.
Mammography Study: AI Facilitates Greater Accuracy and Longer Fixation Time on Suspicious Areas
July 8th 2025While noting no differences in sensitivity, specificity or reading time with adjunctive AI for mammography screening, the authors of a new study noted a 4 percent higher AUC and increased fixation time on lesion regions.
Can Contrast-Enhanced Mammography be a Viable Screening Alternative to Breast MRI?
June 17th 2025While the addition of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) led to over a 13 percent increase in false positive cases, researchers also noted over double the cancer yield per 1,000 women in comparison to DBT alone.
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and High-Concentration ICM Dosing: What a New Study Reveals
June 16th 2025New research showed a 96 to 97 percent sensitivity for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with an increased iodine delivery rate facilitating robust contrast enhancement for women with aggressive breast cancer.
