Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ikeda, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ikeda, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.

Radiology, Vol 168, 651-656, Copyright © 1988 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Second-screening mammography: one versus two views per breast

DM Ikeda and EA Sickles
Department of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143.

To compare the advantages of one-view versus two-view second-screening (follow-up) mammography, oblique and craniocaudal projection mammograms from 1,000 consecutive asymptomatic women who had prior normal baseline studies were reviewed retrospectively, first with only the oblique images, then with the oblique and craniocaudal views. In women with dense breasts, one-view (oblique only) readings resulted in abnormal interpretations four times more frequently (53 cases, 5.3%) than two- view readings (13 cases, 1.3%). The induced cost from these abnormal interpretations would have more than offset the small savings in operating expense associated with one-view screening. In contrast, four times fewer abnormal one-view interpretations (13 cases, 1.3%) were made in women with primarily fatty breasts, in whom superimposition of dense tissue on images is not as frequently a problem. In these women, considering only cost, it may be reasonable to obtain a single mediolateral oblique projection for follow-up screening mammography. However, the issue of whether to implement such an approach remains unresolved, because the sensitivity of one-view versus two-view second screening in the detection of breast cancer has not yet been determined.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. J. Kim, W. K. Moon, N. Cho, J. H. Cha, S. M. Kim, and J.-G. Im
Computer-aided Detection in Digital Mammography: Comparison of Craniocaudal, Mediolateral Oblique, and Mediolateral Views
Radiology, December 1, 2006; 241(3): 695 - 701.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1988 by the Radiological Society of North America.