Radiology · 1996
Usefulness of the routine magnification view after breast conservation therapy for carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
DiPiro P J, Meyer J E, Shaffer K, Denison C M, Frenna T H, Rolfs A T
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the usefulness of the routine supplementary magnification view in patients who have undergone breast conservation therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred seventy-one mammograms in 392 patients were evaluated. Conventional craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views were obtained in each patient. After a preliminary interpretation was made, a magnification view of the excision site was evaluated and any additional information was documented.
RESULTS: In 115 examinations (24%), the magnification view was considered necessary to better evaluate equivocal or questionable calcifications seen on standard views. In 18 cases (4%), review of the magnification view influenced the decision to perform biopsy. None of the magnification views that were considered unnecessary caused the interpretation made from conventional views to be altered.
CONCLUSION: Magnification mammographic views should be obtained in patients who have undergone breast conservation therapy only when considered necessary after review of findings on conventional views.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred seventy-one mammograms in 392 patients were evaluated. Conventional craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views were obtained in each patient. After a preliminary interpretation was made, a magnification view of the excision site was evaluated and any additional information was documented.
RESULTS: In 115 examinations (24%), the magnification view was considered necessary to better evaluate equivocal or questionable calcifications seen on standard views. In 18 cases (4%), review of the magnification view influenced the decision to perform biopsy. None of the magnification views that were considered unnecessary caused the interpretation made from conventional views to be altered.
CONCLUSION: Magnification mammographic views should be obtained in patients who have undergone breast conservation therapy only when considered necessary after review of findings on conventional views.