AJR Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Andersson, I
Right arrow Articles by Pettersson, H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Andersson, I
Right arrow Articles by Pettersson, H
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 130, Issue 2, 349-351
Copyright © 1978 by American Roentgen Ray Society

Articles

Number of projections in mammography: influence on detection of breast disease

I Andersson, J Hildell, A Muhlow, and H Pettersson

A total of 491 cases of breast cancer were reviewed to evaluate the diagnostic importance of the three standard projections; craniocaudal, mediolateral, and oblique. With only one projection, 90% of the malignancies would have been detected; with two and three projections the percentages rose to 94% and 95%, respectively. Nonvisualization was due to either juxtathoracic position of the tumor or superimposition of dense tissues. A relation was found between the position of a juxtathoracic tumor and the projection in which it was visualized. The mean diameter of tumors not visible due to superimposition of dense tissues was smaller than that of the whole material. In breast screening programs, use of two projections, the oblique and craniocaudal, is recommended.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


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 page
 BMJHome page
H. Thornton
Many subjects in trial were not asked for consent
BMJ, February 24, 1996; 312(7029): 509 - 509.
[Full Text]

Home page
 BMJHome page
S Field, M J Michell, M G W Wallis, and A R M Wilson
What should be done about interval breast cancers?
BMJ, January 28, 1995; 310(6974): 203 - 204.
[Full Text]

Home page
 BMJHome page
C. B J Woodman, A. G Threlfall, C. R M Boggis, and P. Prior
Is the three year breast screening interval too long? Occurrence of interval cancers in NHS breast screening programme's north western region
BMJ, January 28, 1995; 310(6974): 224 - 226.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1978 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.