Unnamed: 0 int64 0 21.3k | Chapter stringclasses 230
values | Section stringlengths 5 670 ⌀ | Subsection stringlengths 1 120 ⌀ | Subsubsection stringclasses 689
values | Text stringlengths 1 4.39k ⌀ | row_counts int64 6 6 | Screening float64 0 0.98 | Diagnosis float64 0 0.99 | Staging float64 0 0.99 | Treatment float64 0 0.99 | Prognosis float64 0 0.99 | Follow-up float64 0 0.99 | max_value float64 0 0.99 | classs int64 1 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
900 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Number nan | FIGURE 11-10 A 7-mm cluster of amorphous calcifica- tions: ductal carcinoma in situ. | 6 | 0.095 | 0.082 | 0.063 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.095 | 1 |
901 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Number nan | calcifications in a cluster. Five or more clustered calcifications not typically benign have been a threshold advocated by some experienced readers for biopsy. Others have noted increased frequency of cancer with increasing number of cal- cification particles. Most radiologists incorporate number of calcifications in a... | 6 | 0 | 0.015 | 0.023 | 0.047 | 0.068 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 6 |
902 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Distribution nan | Distribution of calcifications in addition to morphology, number, and biologic change helps establish a probability of malignancy. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.095 | 2 |
903 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Distribution nan | Grouped or clustered: Clustered calcifications refer to a group of calcifications in a less than 2 cm3 volume of tissue. Although “cluster” has historically been asso- ciated with malignancy, this term can be used as a neutral designator. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.095 | 2 |
904 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Distribution nan | FIGURE 11-11 A 7-cm area of calcifications in a linear dis- tribution (arrows): ductal carcinoma in situ. | 6 | 0 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.095 | 2 |
905 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Distribution nan | FIGURE 11-12 Magnification view of diffuse, pleomorphic microcalcifications in a heterogeneously dense breast. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.045 | 0.035 | 0.09 | 1 |
906 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Distribution nan | High-grade DCIS and invasive ductal carcinoma found at pathology. | 6 | 0.015 | 0.023 | 0.047 | 0.068 | 0.091 | 0.082 | 0.091 | 5 |
907 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Distribution nan | Segmental: Calcifications restricted to a segment or wedge-shaped portion of the breast may arise within a single ductal system and its branches. This is a dis- tribution frequently associated with malignancy. | 6 | 0.025 | 0.037 | 0.041 | 0.068 | 0.079 | 0.087 | 0.087 | 6 |
908 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Distribution nan | Diffuse/scattered: Calcifications that appear to be ran- domly distributed throughout the breast are referred to as diffuse or scattered. Compared to linear or | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.045 | 0.035 | 0.09 | 1 |
909 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Calcifications | Distribution nan | segmental, scattered calcifications are associated with lower risk of malignancy. By chance, randomly distributed calcification will have areas of higher con- centration of calcification particles and areas of fewer not dissimilar to a shotgun pellet pattern. These more concentrated groups are viewed with less suspicio... | 6 | 0.015 | 0.023 | 0.047 | 0.068 | 0.092 | 0.089 | 0.092 | 5 |
910 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Architectural Distortion | nan nan | Architectural distortion may be a very subjective appear- ance on a mammogram or a straightforward observation. Architectural distortion refers to an unusual pattern that includes spiculations and retraction (Fig. 11-13). Unless associated with an area of prior biopsy or area of prior infection, architectural distortio... | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.045 | 0.025 | 0.09 | 1 |
911 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Unusual Findings | nan nan | Focal skin thickening may be associated with benign or malignant ideologies. Malignant causes would include inflammatory carcinoma (Fig. 11-14) and local skin thicken- ing adjacent to a known carcinoma. Skin thickening may be present with benign conditions such as infection and venous obstruction. Clinical management a... | 6 | 0.025 | 0.037 | 0.068 | 0.092 | 0.075 | 0.05 | 0.092 | 4 |
912 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Unusual Findings | nan nan | Focal asymmetry describes an area of asymmetry that lacks the appearance of a true mass. Additional imaging and ultrasound may be required for characterization (Fig. 11-5) but this may be a very subtle manifestation of early breast cancer, especially if a new finding. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 1 |
913 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Unusual Findings | nan nan | FIGURE 11-13 (A) Subtle area of architectural distortion (circle). (B) Spot magnification view demonstrates distortion (arrow). | 6 | 0 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.062 | 0.048 | 0.008 | 0.095 | 2 |
914 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Unusual Findings | nan nan | FIGURE 11-14 Bilateral mediolateral oblique views demonstrates skin thickening (arrow) of the breast on the right, increased density, as well as a dense axillary lymph node (arrows): inflammatory carcinoma. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.055 | 0.035 | 0.09 | 1 |
915 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Unusual Findings | nan nan | FIGURE 11-15 (A) Male breast cancer presenting as an irregular, retroareolar mass | 6 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 1 |
916 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE | Unusual Findings | nan nan | (arrow). (B) Spot compression view demonstrates the irregular mass. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.095 | 2 |
917 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | ROLE OF THE MAMMOGRAPHY IN EVALUATION THE SYMPTOMATIC PATIENT | null | nan nan | The evaluation of a symptomatic patient is common. Physical examination has poor specificity with only 4% of symptomatic women found to have malignancy (14). The goal of mammography in this setting is to characterize the palpable finding and assess the balance of the breast. Breast ultrasound is used extensively in the... | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.055 | 0.035 | 0.09 | 1 |
918 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | ROLE OF THE MAMMOGRAPHY IN EVALUATION THE SYMPTOMATIC PATIENT | Palpable Mass or Thickening | nan nan | Individuals with a palpable breast abnormality such as a dis- crete mass or focal thickening or nodularity should undergo diagnostic imaging prior to biopsy since biopsy can alter mammographic and sonographic appearances. Women 30 years and older are recommended for mammography and sonography; women younger than 30 are... | 6 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 1 |
919 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | ROLE OF THE MAMMOGRAPHY IN EVALUATION THE SYMPTOMATIC PATIENT | Bloody or Serous Discharge | nan nan | Mammographic sensitivity may be as low as 10% for intra- ductal cancer presenting as nipple discharge (29). If the mammogram is negative, retroareolar breast ultrasound can be performed to assess for intraductal masses or other findings. If mammogram and ultrasound are negative in the setting of a suspicious discharge,... | 6 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 2 |
920 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | ROLE OF THE MAMMOGRAPHY IN EVALUATION THE SYMPTOMATIC PATIENT | Bloody or Serous Discharge | nan nan | areas of abnormal enhancement and possibly intraductal masses. MR size resolution is less than ductogram. Rarely, a ductogram or MR may demonstrate a distal intraductal mass, which may not be reached during routine retroareolar duct surgery. In this situation, the mass can be localized for the surgeon to ensure proper ... | 6 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.075 | 0.06 | 0.1 | 2 |
921 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | ROLE OF THE MAMMOGRAPHY IN EVALUATION THE SYMPTOMATIC PATIENT | Axillary Lymph Node Presentation of Breast Cancer | nan nan | Less than 1% of women with breast cancer will present with an axillary mass found to represent metastatic breast cancer in axillary lymph nodes with normal breast physical examina- tion. Diagnostic mammography should be performed of both breasts to assess for occult breast cancer. If mammography is negative, breast MR ... | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.062 | 0.045 | 0.038 | 0.023 | 0.095 | 1 |
922 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | ROLE OF THE MAMMOGRAPHY IN EVALUATION THE SYMPTOMATIC PATIENT | Symptomatic Pregnant and Lactating Women | nan nan | Sonography is the initial imaging evaluation of pregnant and lactating women, many whom have never been screened due to young age although mammography may be also useful in some cases to assess for calcifications (31). Due to the extremely low fetal radiation dose, mammography is not contradicted when sonography or phy... | 6 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.095 | 1 |
923 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | NEWLY DIAGNOSED BREAST CANCER | null | nan nan | survival is unknown. Magnification mammography is rou- tinely used in the setting of breast cancer manifested as microcalcifications to assess extent. Following lumpectomy with negative pathologic margins, mammography is recom- mended in cases with malignant calcifications to ensure exci- sion. Suspicious residual calc... | 6 | 0 | 0.025 | 0.075 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.075 | 3 |
924 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | BREAST-CONSERVATION-TREATED (BCT) PATIENT SURVEILLANCE | null | nan nan | Mammographic surveillance following breast-conservation therapy is typically performed at 6 months, 12 months, and then yearly, although variations exist and the optimal intervals have not been established. Because normal post- BCT changes may mimic cancer by mammography, the first mammogram can serve as a baseline for... | 6 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 1 |
925 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | BREAST-CONSERVATION-TREATED (BCT) PATIENT SURVEILLANCE | Symptomatic Males | nan nan | Men presenting with palpable findings may undergo breast imaging, although some clinicians proceed directly to biopsy when the clinical findings are suspicious. The nor- mal male breast is entirely fatty. Gynecomastia presents as retroareolar mammographic density without calcification which may be asymmetric. This ofte... | 6 | 0.002 | 0.076 | 0.004 | 0.018 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 5 |
926 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SCREENING: SPECIAL SITUATIONS | null | nan nan | pausal family history with both annual mammography and MR (24,39). This screening may start as early as ages 25 to 30. There are no randomized control trials to show survival ben- efit as exists for women aged 40-and older. Mammographic appearance of cancer in some high-risk groups may be simi- lar to the population in... | 6 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 5 |
927 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | MAMMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT OF BREAST DENSITY AS A RISK FACTOR | null | nan nan | Extremely dense (7) (Fig. 11-16) | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.095 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 3 |
928 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | FACTORS AFFECTING MAMMOGRAPHIC SENSITIVITY | Breast Density | nan nan | Breast cancer attenuates x-rays and appears as a white density. A white density against a black (fatty) background is easy to detect (high signal-to-noise ratio). A white density cancer against a white background of fibroglandu- lar tissue is difficult and, in many situations, impossible to detect. The normal dense tis... | 6 | 0.015 | 0.023 | 0.047 | 0.068 | 0.091 | 0.086 | 0.091 | 5 |
929 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | FACTORS AFFECTING MAMMOGRAPHIC SENSITIVITY | Biologic Subtypes | nan nan | Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is difficult to detect by mam- mography prior to clinical presentation. The infiltrative pat- tern of ILC often does not produce a recognizable mass by mammography when small. Additionally, only 5% of ILC is associated with microcalcifications. Invasive lobular cancer is detected at a larg... | 6 | 0.013 | 0.067 | 0.087 | 0.093 | 0.077 | 0.087 | 0.093 | 4 |
930 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | High-quality mammography has dramatically changed the evaluation of women for breast cancer in the last 25 years. Age-appropriate routine screening mammography is recom- mended. Diagnostic breast imaging of symptomatic indi- viduals can assist characterization of palpable findings. However, clinically suspicious abnorm... | 6 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 6 |
931 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | REFERENCES | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.1 | 0.095 | 0.1 | 5 |
932 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Quality mammography standards. Final Rule. Fed Register 1997;62:208. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 1 |
933 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digi- tal versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773–1783. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 1 |
934 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Quality determinants of mammography. No. 13. Clinical Practice Guideline, 1994. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.075 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.025 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 3 |
935 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | FDA Executive Summary: P080003 Hologic Selenia Dimensions 3D System. In: Meeting of the radiological devices advisory panel. Gaithersburg, MD: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 2010:1–34. http:// edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-18416.htm. | 6 | 0.095 | 0.075 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 1 |
936 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.1 | 0.095 | 0.1 | 5 |
937 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | (BI-RADS). Reston, VA: ACR, 2003. | 6 | 0.095 | 0.1 | 0.87005 | 0.62005 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.87005 | 3 |
938 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Beam C, Sullivan D, Layde P. Effect of human variability on indepen- dent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 1996;3: 891–897. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 1 |
939 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Karssemeijer N, Otten JDM, Verbeek ALM, et al. Computer-aided detec- tion versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 2003;227:192–200. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 2 |
940 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screen- ing and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861–869. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 4 |
941 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-inde- pendent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:282–290. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
942 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA. Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95: 250–252. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 6 |
943 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, et al. Radiologist character- istics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammogra- phy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1854–1863. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 4 |
944 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, et al. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammogra- phy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:543–549. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 1 |
945 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Otten JDM, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JHCL, et al. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch perfor- mance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:748–754. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 2 |
946 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Kundel HL, et al. Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:917–923. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 2 |
947 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Krupinski EA. Visual search of mammographic images: influence of lesion subtlety. Acad Radiol 2005;12:965–969. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 1 |
948 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Helvie MA. Improving mammographic interpretation: double reading and computer-aided diagnosis. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:801–811. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 2 |
949 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Fenton JJ, Abraham L, Taplin SH, et al. Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103:1152–1161. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.074 | 0.088 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 1 |
950 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463–468. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 1 |
951 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Version 1. http://www.nccn.org, 2012. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 2 |
952 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, et al. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a pal- pable lump. Radiology 2001;219:186–191. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 2 |
953 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Kaiser JS, Helvie MA, Blacklaw RL, et al. Palpable breast thickening: role of mammography and US in cancer detection. Radiology 2002;223: 839–844. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 6 |
954 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 2002;225:176–181. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 2 |
955 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Scott Soo M, Rosen EL, Baker JA, et al. Negative predictive value of sonog- raphy with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:1167–1170. | 6 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.005 | 0.095 | 1 |
956 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Adepoju LJ, Chun J, El-Tamer M, et al. The value of clinical characteristics and breast-imaging studies in predicting a histopathologic diagnosis of cancer or high-risk lesion in patients with spontaneous nipple discharge. Am J Surg 2005;190:644–646. | 6 | 0.087 | 0.093 | 0.087 | 0.093 | 0.087 | 0.093 | 0.093 | 2 |
957 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Buchanan CL, Morris EA, Dorn PL, et al. Utility of breast magnetic reso- nance imaging in patients with occult primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:1045–1053. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.076 | 0.089 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 1 |
958 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Robbins J, Jeffries D, Roubidoux M, et al. Accuracy of diagnostic mam- mography and breast ultrasound during pregnancy and lactation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:716–722. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 2 |
959 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, et al. Radiation dose to organs and tissues from mammography: Monte Carlo and Phantom Study. Radiology 2008;246:434–44. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 3 |
960 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Morrow M. Management of nonpalpable breast lesions. Prin Pract Oncol | 6 | 0.025 | 0.037 | 0.041 | 0.068 | 0.059 | 0.041 | 0.068 | 4 |
961 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | 1990;4:1–11. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.006 | 0.08 | 5 |
962 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Newman EA, Guest AB, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer 2006;107:2346–2351. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 2 |
963 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | treatment for early-stage invasive breast cancer: a meta-analysis and sys- tematic review. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4010–4018. | 6 | 0.095 | 0.076 | 0.083 | 0.083 | 0.083 | 0.083 | 0.095 | 1 |
964 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Vapiwala N, Starzyk J, Harris EE, et al. Biopsy findings after breast conser- vation therapy for early-stage invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:490–497. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 3 |
965 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Pinsky RW, Rebner M, Pierce LJ, et al. Recurrent cancer after breast- conserving surgery with radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features, method of detection, and stage of recurrence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:140–144. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 3 |
966 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Patterson SK, Helvie MA, Aziz K, et al. Outcome of men presenting with clinical breast problems: the role of mammography and ultrasound. Breast J 2006;12:418–423. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2 |
967 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:75–89. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 3 |
968 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, et al. Personalizing mammogra- phy by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 2011;155: 10–20. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.076 | 0.043 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 1 |
969 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Martin KE, Helvie MA, Zhou C, et al. Mammographic density mea- sured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists’ estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology 2006;240: 656–665. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 2 |
970 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | Krizmanich-Conniff KM, Paramagul C, Patterson SK, et al. Triple receptor- negative breast cancer: imaging and clinical characteristics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:458–464. | 6 | 0.073 | 0.087 | 0.087 | 0.087 | 0.087 | 0.087 | 0.087 | 2 |
971 | Imaging Analysis: Mammography | SUMMARY | null | nan nan | C H A P T E R 12 | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.045 | 0.035 | 0.09 | 1 |
972 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | null | null | nan nan | Emily L. Sedgwick | 6 | 0.09 | 0.1 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.1 | 2 |
973 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CHAPTER CONTENTS | null | nan nan | Lump in Pregnant or Lactating Woman | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.07 | 0.065 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 1 |
974 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CHAPTER CONTENTS | null | nan nan | Lump in a Patient Younger than 30 Years of Age Lump in a Patient Older than 30 Years of Age Mammographic Mass | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.062 | 0.1 | 0.045 | 0.09 | 0.1 | 4 |
975 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CHAPTER CONTENTS | null | nan nan | Suspicious Mammographic Findings without Mammographic Mass | 6 | 0.025 | 0.037 | 0.041 | 0.068 | 0.092 | 0.087 | 0.092 | 5 |
976 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CHAPTER CONTENTS | null | nan nan | Nipple Discharge Implant Rupture Extent of Disease | 6 | 0.025 | 0.037 | 0.041 | 0.068 | 0.092 | 0.087 | 0.092 | 5 |
977 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CHAPTER CONTENTS | null | nan nan | The use of breast ultrasound for the characterization of breast masses was described as early as 1966 in a Russian journal (1). For many years, the primary indication for sonog- raphy was to assess if a breast mass was cystic or solid; however, technological advancements in the resolution and speed of breast ultrasound... | 6 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 2 |
978 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS | null | nan nan | The utility of breast ultrasound depends upon two key fac- tors: equipment and who is performing the ultrasound. Breast ultrasound should be performed with a high-fre- quency linear transducer, 10 MHz or higher. At a mini- mum, gray-scale ultrasound (also known as “B mode”) is performed, and Doppler ultrasound (either ... | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.063 | 0.045 | 0.032 | 0.021 | 0.095 | 1 |
979 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS | null | nan nan | Elastography is another ultrasound tool to help to char- acterize a lesion. Elastography is the measurement of mass stiffness. In general, a benign mass is stiffer than the adja- cent normal breast tissue, and a malignant mass is stiffer than a benign mass. A variety of elastography methods have been proposed. A simple... | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.1 | 0.095 | 0.1 | 5 |
980 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS | null | nan nan | it change in shape or asking the patient to hum during the examination to assess its effect on ultrasound sound waves as they move through the lesion (also known as fremitus). Recently, technological advances have been developed in an effort to standardize elastography performance and interpretation. Formal elastograph... | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.063 | 0.054 | 0.043 | 0.032 | 0.095 | 1 |
981 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | IMAGE DOCUMENTATION | null | nan nan | The ACR recommends that at least two images be performed of a lesion to document its appearance in orthogonal planes | 6 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.1 | 2 |
982 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | IMAGE DOCUMENTATION | null | nan nan | (3). The ACR Practice Guidelines also recommend image labeling to include clock face position, transducer orien- tation, and distance from the nipple (3). Documenting the presence of any internal vascularity associated with the finding is also recommended. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.095 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.095 | 2 |
983 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | IMAGE DOCUMENTATION | null | nan nan | 123 | 6 | 0.085 | 0.097 | 0.064 | 0.098 | 0.099 | 0.086 | 0.099 | 5 |
984 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | Once a lesion has been identified and imaged, the radiolo- gist uses the BI-RADS lexicon to characterize the lesion and form a final impression to guide management. The first edi- tion of the ultrasound BI-RADS lexicon was released by the American College of Radiology in 2003. It was modeled after the mammography lexic... | 6 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 2 |
985 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | The first, and most common, category in the lexicon is “mass.” Once a finding has been confirmed in orthogo- nal planes, it is further characterized by the descriptors of shape, orientation, margin, lesion boundary, echo pattern, posterior acoustic features, and surrounding tissue. Shape is further subdivided into oval... | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.043 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 4 |
986 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | Mass orientation relative to the skin is the second descriptor. A mass that is parallel to the skin is more likely to be benign. A mass with an antiparallel orientation to the skin (common described as “taller than wide”) has a PPV for malignancy of 69% (6). | 6 | 0 | 0.035 | 0.048 | 0.075 | 0.069 | 0 | 0.075 | 4 |
987 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | As with mammography and breast MRI, the margin of a mass is most strongly predictive of malignancy. The margin can be described as circumscribed or noncircumscribed. Noncircumscribed margin descriptors include indistinct, angular, microlobulated, and spiculated. Of the four noncir- cumscribed descriptors, a spiculated ... | 6 | 0 | 0.095 | 0.073 | 0.042 | 0.086 | 0 | 0.095 | 2 |
988 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | The last three descriptors are lesion boundary, inter- nal echogenicity, and posterior acoustic features. These descriptors are important but are not the major criteria in the characterization of a mass found by ultrasound. Occasionally, there may be an echogenic border at the mass lesion boundary; this has been associ... | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 1 |
989 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | hypoechoic (6). The final mass descriptor relates to the posterior acoustic features of a mass. Increased through transmission is a fundamental feature of a benign simple cyst; however, the classically described posterior acous- tic shadowing has been shown to be a weak predictor for malignancy (6). | 6 | 0 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.043 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.095 | 2 |
990 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | The BI-RADS final assessment categories are intended to guide management. If a finding is judged to be BI-RADS | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.07 | 0.065 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 1 |
991 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | 1 (negative) or BI-RADS 2 (benign), routine follow-up is recommended. If a finding is probably benign (BI-RADS 3), short-term follow-up is recommended in 6 months, because the incidence of malignancy in this population is 2% or less | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 1 |
992 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | INTERPRETATION (SEE TABLE 12-1) | null | nan nan | (5). If a finding is suspicious for malignancy, the finding is assessed as a BI-RADS 4, where the expected incidence of malignancy is 3% to 94% (5). Subcategories of BI-RADS 4 have been created to stratify malignancy risk; however, more study is needed to further define the subcategories. BI-RADS 5 is used when finding... | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.087 | 0 | 0.087 | 5 |
993 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CLINICAL INDICATIONS (SEE TABLE 12-2) | Lump in Pregnant or Lactating Woman | nan nan | The prevalence of breast cancer in this population is rela- tively low: breast cancer occurs in 1 out of 3,000 pregnancies | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.064 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 1 |
994 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CLINICAL INDICATIONS (SEE TABLE 12-2) | Lump in Pregnant or Lactating Woman | nan nan | to reliably assess for breast calcifications due to ultrasound speckle artifact. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.065 | 0.045 | 0.035 | 0.09 | 1 |
995 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CLINICAL INDICATIONS (SEE TABLE 12-2) | Lump in a Patient Younger than 30 Years of Age | nan nan | The percentage of breast cancer diagnosed in women in their 20s is less than 1% (9). The vast majority of palpable breast complaints are due to normal breast tissue, simple cysts, or fibroadenomas—lesions that are well characterized by ultrasound alone. For this reason, the ACR and National Comprehensive Cancer Network... | 6 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 6 |
996 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CLINICAL INDICATIONS (SEE TABLE 12-2) | Lump in a Patient Younger than 30 Years of Age | nan nan | Recent media attention has created some discussion around the diagnosis of breast cancer in children and teens. The incidence of malignancy in this population is exceed- ingly low (<1% of all pediatric breast masses) and can be associated with other risk factors (e.g., TP53 genetic muta- tion) (11). For girls with a br... | 6 | 0.098 | 0.076 | 0.043 | 0.089 | 0.092 | 0.089 | 0.098 | 1 |
997 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CLINICAL INDICATIONS (SEE TABLE 12-2) | Lump in a Patient Younger than 30 Years of Age | nan nan | An important sonographic finding in the pediatric pop- ulation is the breast bud. Imaging features of the normal breast bud (irregular shape, irregular margins, posterior acoustic shadowing) may tempt an inexperienced sonogra- pher to recommend biopsy. Biopsy of the breast bud should be avoided, however, because the bi... | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.064 | 0.092 | 0.091 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 1 |
998 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CLINICAL INDICATIONS (SEE TABLE 12-2) | Lump in a Patient Older than 30 Years of Age | nan nan | For women older than 40 years of age, the incidence of breast malignancy increases, and mammography is the first step in imaging a palpable complaint. Mammography can provide important information that may obviate the ultra- sound or improve the characterization of an ultrasound finding. For example, fat necrosis can b... | 6 | 0.005 | 0.098 | 0.076 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 2 |
999 | Imaging Analysis: Ultrasonography | CLINICAL INDICATIONS (SEE TABLE 12-2) | Lump in a Patient Older than 30 Years of Age | nan nan | If the palpable abnormality is detected by the physician, it is helpful to show the patient the location of the lump so she may show the radiologist performing the ultrasound. If the ultrasound is to be performed on the same day or next day, it is recommended that the referring physician indicate the palpable area of c... | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.064 | 0.092 | 0.089 | 0.091 | 0.095 | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.