HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

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

Breast Imaging: From 1965 to the Present¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, University of California Medical Center, 2330 Post St, Room 180, San Francisco, CA 94115. Received August 31, 1999; revision requested October 12; revision received November 4; accepted November 12. Address reprint requests to the author.

Abstract

The current state of the art for breast imaging is reviewed in comparison with the methods of practice commonly in use 25–35 years ago to demonstrate the most important advances that have taken place in imaging techniques, operational considerations, interpretive approaches, and interventional procedures. Since 1965, breast imaging has progressed from the simple assessment of breast disease in a selected small number of symptomatic women to the comprehensive evaluation of both breast health and disease in a substantial percentage of all women aged 40 years and older. In the process, breast imaging has become an established radiologic subspecialty that accounts for at least 10% of all examinations performed by radiologists. Indeed, mammography now is the most common imaging examination that directly results in the reduction of mortality from disease.

Index terms: Breast, diseases • Breast neoplasms, 00.3 • Radiology and radiologists, history • Reflections

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. D. Patel and R. R. Arora Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of aortic dissection Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease, December 1, 2008; 2(6): 439 - 468. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Berlin Accuracy of Diagnostic Procedures: Has It Improved Over the Past Five Decades? Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2007; 188(5): 1173 - 1178. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Douglas, A. E. Iskandrian, H. M. Krumholz, L. Gillam, R. Hendel, J. Jollis, E. Peterson, J. Chen, F. Masoudi, E. Mohler III, et al. Achieving Quality in Cardiovascular Imaging: Proceedings From the American College of Cardiology-Duke University Medical Center Think Tank on Quality in Cardiovascular Imaging J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 21, 2006; 48(10): 2141 - 2151. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Patel, J. A. Spertus, R. G. Brindis, R. C. Hendel, P. S. Douglas, E. D. Peterson, M. J. Wolk, J. M. Allen, and I. E. Raskin ACCF Proposed Method for Evaluating the Appropriateness of Cardiovascular Imaging J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 18, 2005; 46(8): 1606 - 1613. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Berlin Dot Size, Lead Time, Fallibility, and Impact on Survival: Continuing Controversies in Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2001; 176(5): 1123 - 1130. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. T. Harris Case 41: Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Radiology, December 1, 2001; 221(3): 770 - 773. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. G. Thurfjell, A. Lindgren, and E. Thurfjell Nonpalpable Breast Cancer: Mammographic Appearance as Predictor of Histologic Type Radiology, January 1, 2002; 222(1): 165 - 170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]