AJR Get Involved! Great Benefits! 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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Sickles, E.
Right arrow Articles by Callen, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E.
Right arrow Articles by Callen, P.
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 140, Issue 5, 843-845
Copyright © 1983 by American Roentgen Ray Society

Articles

Breast cancer detection with sonography and mammography: comparison using state-of-the-art equipment

EA Sickles, RA Filly, and PW Callen

This prospective study, involving 1,000 women referred for routine mammography, compares the breast cancer detecting abilities of state-of-the-art mammography and sonography using an automated water-path scanner. Mammography was found to be the superior technique, detecting 62 (97%) of the 64 pathologically proven cancers, while sonography detected only 37 (58%). When considering those cancers most amenable to cure, mammography detected over 90% in all categories, but sonography detected only 48% of the cancers that had not yet spread to axillary lymph nodes, only 30% of the nonpalpable malignancies, and only 8% of the cancers smaller than 1 cm. These data indicate that sonography is not an acceptable substitute for mammography in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. The data further suggest that radiologists who wish to improve the cancer-detecting ability of their current breast imaging operation should upgrade their mammography to state-of-the-art status before adding an automated whole-breast ultrasound scanner.
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
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, and E. L. Madsen
Lesion Detection and Characterization in a Breast US Phantom: Results of the ACRIN 6666 Investigators
Radiology, June 1, 2006; 239(3): 693 - 702.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
W. K. Moon, D.-Y. Noh, and J.-G. Im
Multifocal, Multicentric, and Contralateral Breast Cancers: Bilateral Whole-Breast US in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients
Radiology, August 1, 2002; 224(2): 569 - 576.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles
Breast Imaging: From 1965 to the Present
Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 1 - 16.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
G. Rahbar, A. C. Sie, G. C. Hansen, J. S. Prince, M. L. Melany, H. E. Reynolds, V. P. Jackson, J. W. Sayre, and L. W. Bassett
Benign versus Malignant Solid Breast Masses: US Differentiation
Radiology, December 1, 1999; 213(3): 889 - 894.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1983 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.