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
Emerging AI Algorithm Shows Promise for Abbreviated Breast MRI in Multicenter Study
April 25th 2025An artificial intelligence algorithm for dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI offered a 93.9 percent AUC for breast cancer detection, and a 92.3 percent sensitivity in BI-RADS 3 cases, according to new research presented at the Society for Breast Imaging (SBI) conference.
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.
Can Abbreviated Breast MRI Have an Impact in Assessing Post-Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response?
April 24th 2025New research presented at the Society for Breast Imaging (SBI) conference suggests that abbreviated MRI is comparable to full MRI in assessing pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Clarius Mobile Health Unveils Anterior Knee Feature for Handheld Ultrasound
April 23rd 2025The T-Mode Anterior Knee feature reportedly offers a combination of automated segmentation and real-time conversion of grayscale ultrasound images into color-coded visuals that bolster understanding for novice ultrasound users.