Full Text
Full text is available in PDF
An Innovative Journal in the Field of Radiology
e-ISSN 2008-2711
p-ISSN 1735-1065
Weight of Different Descriptors of Mammography
Authors
1Associate Professor of Radiology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding Author: MD, Associate Professor of Radiology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, p_gity@yahoo.com. Email: p_gity@yahoo.com
Published online:Apr 12, 2017
Article type:Abstract
Received:Dec 20, 2016
Accepted:Feb 07, 2017
How to Cite:Gity M. Weight of Different Descriptors of Mammography. I J Radiol. 2017;14(Special Issue):e48370. doi: https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.48370
Abstract
Mammography has been recognized as the best method of screening for breast cancer, for a long time. Although the sensitivity of mammography is acceptable, it has limited specificity and a radiologist should be aware of limitations and pitfalls. There are different positive findings in mammography which are descriptors of breast disease including benign lesions or breast cancer. In this talk I will explain different descriptors of mammography. These descriptors are different in weight toward predicting malignancy. For example, a mass is classified by the shape, margin and density. It has been discussed that some forms of margin have a high positive predictive value for malignancy. Also microcacifications as good descriptors for early malignant process are classified by their shape (morphology) and distribution. We will discuss the comparative weight of different descriptors as predictors of breast cancer.
Highlights
Copyright
© 2017, Author(s). This open-access article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which allows for unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
Similar Articles
30
Sep
2009
Different BIRADS Categories in Screening and Diagnostic Mammography
Ali Reza Ehsanbakhsh,
F. Sailanian Toosi,
N. Khorashadizadeh
Ehsanbakhsh AR, Sailanian Toosi F, Khorashadizadeh N. Different BIRADS Categories in Screening and Diagnostic Mammography . I J Radiol. 2009;6(3):e78959. doi:
10
Mar
2018
Evaluation of Suspicious Appearing Microcalcification Groups on Mammogram: Comparing BI-RADS 5th Edition Descriptors with the BI-RADS 4th Edition and Pathologic Association
Nasrin Ahmadinejad,
Maryam Jafari,
Maryam Rahmani,
Kiara Rezaei-Kalantari,
Madjid Shakiba
Ahmadinejad N, Jafari M, Rahmani M, Rezaei-Kalantari K, Shakiba M. Evaluation of Suspicious Appearing Microcalcification Groups on Mammogram: Comparing BI-RADS 5th Edition Descriptors with the BI-RADS 4th Edition and Pathologic Association. I J Radiol. 2018;15(2):e14013. doi: https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.14013
30
Mar
2011
Screening Mammography for Breast Cancer in Women Using Bi‐RADS Scores
MM Tariq,
S Khubaib,
AB Imran,
Muhammad Ibrahim
Tariq M, Khubaib S, Imran A, Ibrahim M. Screening Mammography for Breast Cancer in Women Using Bi‐RADS Scores. Int J Cancer Manag. 2011;4(1):e80723. doi:
11
Oct
2021
Is Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Superior to Digital Mammography? A Preclinical Evaluation of Tumor Histopathological Markers Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
Aysegul Altunkeser,
Zeynep Fatma Arslan,
Mehmet Ali Eryilmaz,
Muslu Kazım Korez,
Zeynep Bayramoğlu
Altunkeser A, Arslan ZF, Eryilmaz MA, Korez MK, Bayramoğlu Z. Is Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Superior to Digital Mammography? A Preclinical Evaluation of Tumor Histopathological Markers Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. I J Radiol. 2021;18(4):e113846. doi: https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.113846
30
Jun
2012
Comparing the Performance of Image Enhancement Methods to Detect Microcalcification Clusters in Digital Mammography
Hajar Moradmand,
Saeed Setayeshi,
Ali Reza Karimian,
Mehri Sirous,
Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari
Moradmand H, Setayeshi S, Karimian AR, Sirous M, Akbari ME. Comparing the Performance of Image Enhancement Methods to Detect Microcalcification Clusters in Digital Mammography. Int J Cancer Manag. 2012;5(2):e80801. doi:
Cited by
- Scopus by DOI: 0
Last Update: 1 week ago
- Scopus by Title: 0
Last Update: 1 week ago
- Scopus by Title (Ref): 0
Last Update: 1 week ago
- CrossRef: 0
Last Update: 6 days ago
- OpenAlex: 0
Last Update: 2 days ago
- OpenCitations: 0
Last Update: 3 days ago
Comments
Number of Comments:0