DOCSLIB.ORG

Mammographic Breast Density and Ultrasound Breast Screening

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mammographic Breast Density and Ultrasound Breast Screening Mammographic Breast Density and Ultrasound Breast Screening Written for the Society of Breast Imaging by Mark Helvie, MD & Eric Rosen, MD SBI Summer Newsletter – August 2011 1. What is mammographic breast density? Breast density refers to the relative amount of fibrous and glandular tissue which attenuates x-rays on a mammogram. Mammographic density does not directly correlate with amount of glandular tissue per se or tissue hardness on physical examination. 2. How is mammographic density measured? Breast density is the ratio of the area of dense (white) tissue on a mammogram divided by the total area of the imaged breast (percent mammographic density (PMD) on a mammogram. Limitations determining breast density include the threshold set to distinguish dense and non-dense tissue, how this threshold changes with different mammographic techniques, and the actual area of breast imaged. Visual thresholding varies by reader and technique. Density assessments on digital images are often lower than film-screen images and will also vary based upon processing techniques. Because the breast is not defined by a capsule, the actual boundary is subjective. At best, PMD is an approximation. Current BI- RADS categories include both qualitative and quantitative estimates, the later will be dropped in the new BI-RADS version. Although BI-RADS uses 4 categories, density is a continuum from fatty to extremely dense. There is inter-observer variability in both qualitative and quantitative density assessments especially for category 2 and 3. Nicholson showed a 49% agreement among three readers (200 cases) with strongest agreement for category 1 and 4. The development of automated quantitative density assessment software is an active area of research but these algorithms remain limited by the inherent limitations of breast density measurements and their accuracy has been questioned. Interestingly, these quantitative measures are often substantially lower than radiologists estimates. Nicholson showed a median computer estimate of 14.8% for radiologist determined BIRADS scattered density category, less than the expected 25-50%. Similarly, Martin showed untrained readers overestimated density by 37% compared to computer assessment. Experts have questioned the validity of 2D density measures and have proposed 3-dimensional volumetric breast density measures to more accurately reflect breast density although it is unclear if these will be significantly different than 2-D analysis. 3. Why is breast density important? The importance of breast density is two-fold. First, mammographic density impacts the detection of breast cancer. Breast cancer sensitivity is markedly lower in women with very dense breasts than fatty breasts due to masking by dense tissue. In Carney’s assessment of 329, 495 mammograms, the sensitivity of mammography in women with extremely dense breasts was 62% compared to 88 % for fatty breasts. The decreased sensitivity of mammography in dense breasts is a major limitation of mammography Second, mammographic density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. While there are limitations of breast density measures, multiple studies demonstrate that breast cancer risk is increased for women with dense breasts (Density 3and 4) compared to women with non-dense breasts (Density 1 and 2). Meta-analysis by McCormick comparing (fatty(<5%) vs. extremely dense breasts), demonstrated 4.6 fold increased risk. However, 80% of women have breast densities in the middle, either scattered or heterogeneously dense and only 10% are extremely dense or fatty. Therefore, the often cited four to six fold increased risk compares two minority extremes of density and not the increased risk from an average density measure. The risk difference between scattered and heterogeneously dense groups is typically less than 1.5 X. Breast density is not fixed but may change over time. Paradoxically, breast density tends to gradually decreases with age although overall risk increases with age. Pike has proposed it is the cumulative effect of growth factors and hormones over life which increases risk. Boyd and Ursin have shown genetic factors account for 50-60% of variations of breast density. Mammographic assessment of density cannot differentiate fibrous tissue from glandular tissue although it is likely the percentage or amount of glandular tissue is relevant to risk. In the future, functional imaging may aid this discrimination. 4. Is there evidence to support supplemental screening with ultrasound in women with dense mammograms? There are no RCT showing survival benefit of screening women with dense breasts with supplemental whole breast ultrasound screening (WB-US) in addition to mammography. Supplemental WB-US for average risk women with dense breasts is not recommended by the American Cancer Society, NCCN, or the U.S. Preventative Service Taskforce and remains controversial. Since “dense” breasts impact over half the population under 50 and 40% of women over age 50, the question of supplemental WB-US screening warrants careful scientific assessment. The DMIST trial demonstrated that digital mammography was significantly more sensitive than film screen mammography (.59 vs .27 p < .0013) in women who were under age 50 or had dense breasts . Therefore, digital mammography should be used for women with dense breasts regardless of any decision regarding ultrasound. Screening WB-US has been investigated in high-risk women and in women with dense breasts. WB-US in addition to screening mammography has increased cancer detection compared to mammography alone but markedly increases false positive results. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 trial evaluated physician performed WB-US in 2809 high risk women with dense breasts in at least one quadrant. At prevalent screening, the cancer detection rate increased from 7.6/1000 by mammography alone to 11.8 /1000 with mammography and WB-US. The incremental cancers were small (median size 10 mm), primarily invasive, and 89% node negative. However, false-positives were numerous with an overall 8.9% PPV (vs 23% for mammography) as well as a 12.2 % Category 3 rate. Subsequent incidence screening data shows lower recall, lower short term follow up rate with only a small decrease in detection rate. Film screen mammography was utilized in 65% of cases. Corsetti reported on 6449 women having supplemental WB-US with dense breasts. Incremental ultrasound detected 4.4/1000 cancers, similar to ACRIN 6666. Interventional procedures, primarily fna, were performed in 486 cases to detect/diagnosis 29 cancers. Berg summarized 7 WB-US screening studies involving 49,586 women. Incremental cancer detection rate was 3.6/1000. Three percent of screened women underwent biopsy and the PPV for biopsy was 15.6%. 94% of these tumors were invasive and 86% were node negative. These reports are primarily from prevalent WB-US compared to film screen mammography, an important limitation because the reported incremental detection rates may be higher than achieved with current digital mammography. WB-US requires long scanning time, expertise, training, and incremental breast imaging radiologist time. Median scanning time for physicians in ACRIN 6666 was 19 minutes. The resources necessary to perform, read, administer, and perform downstream testing such as marked increase in biopsies may be currently lacking. Automated WB-US systems have been developed and studies are ongoing to evaluate this technology as an alternative to physician directed WB-US screening. It is important to realize, however, that mammography and MR have consistently outperformed mammography and WB-US for very high-risk women independent of breast density (for example, BRCA- mutation carriers and those with lifetime risk of 20% or greater). Berg summarized nine series involving 4485 very high-risk women which showed a 93% sensitivity for mammography and MR but only a 52% sensitivity for mammography and WB-US. For these reasons, the American Cancer Society recommends annual mammography and MRI screening for these very high-risk women. Selected References American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003. Berg WA. "Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging." Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45(5): 895-906, vii. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-2163. Berg WA. "Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next?" AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192(2): 390- 399. Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. Sep 19 2002;347(12):886-894. Carney, P. A., D. L. Miglioretti, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138(3): 168-175. Corsetti, V., A. Ferrari, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 2006; 111(3): 440-448. Kopans DB. Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology. Feb 2008;246(2):348-353. Martin KE, Helvie MA, Zhou C, et al. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology. Sep 2006;240(3):656-665. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. Jun 2006;15(6):1159-1169. Nicholson, B. T., A. P. LoRusso, et al. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.Acad Radiol 2006; 13(9): 1143-1149. Pike MC, Krailo MD, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, Hoel DG. 'Hormonal' risk factors, 'breast tissue age' and the age-incidence of breast cancer. Nature. Jun 30 1983;303(5920):767-770. Pinsky, R. W. and M. A. Helvie . Mammographic breast density: effect on imaging and breast cancer risk.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Future of Breast Elastography
    Future of breast elastography Richard Gary Barr1,2 1Department of Radiology, Northeastern Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH; 2Southwoods Imaging, Youngstown, OH, USA REVIEW ARTICLE Both strain elastography and shear wave elastography have been shown to have high sensitivity https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.18053 pISSN: 2288-5919 • eISSN: 2288-5943 and specificity for characterizing breast lesions as benign or malignant. Training is important for Ultrasonography 2019;38:93-105 both strain and shear wave elastography. The unique feature of benign lesions measuring smaller on elastography than B-mode imaging and malignant lesions appearing larger on elastography is an important feature for characterization of breast masses. There are several artifacts which can contain diagnostic information or alert to technique problems. Both strain and shear wave elastography continue to have improvements and new techniques will soon be available for Received: September 21, 2018 clinical use that may provide additional diagnostic information. This paper reviews the present Revised: January 4, 2019 Accepted: January 4, 2019 state of breast elastography and discusses future techniques that are not yet in clinical practice. Correspondence to: Richard Gary Barr, MD, PhD, Keywords: Breast; Elasticity imaging techniques; Strain; Shear wave; Strain ratio; Southwoods Imaging, 7623 Market Street, Youngstown, OH 44512, USA Breast neoplasms Tel. +1-330-965-5100 Fax. +1-330-965-5109 E-mail: [email protected] Introduction The use of palpation to determine the stiffness of a lesion has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians [1]. Stiff, non-mobile lesions of the breast have a high probability of being malignant.
    [Show full text]
  • Breast Scintimammography
    CLINICAL MEDICAL POLICY Policy Name: Breast Scintimammography Policy Number: MP-105-MD-PA Responsible Department(s): Medical Management Provider Notice Date: 11/23/2020 Issue Date: 11/23/2020 Effective Date: 12/21/2020 Next Annual Review: 10/2021 Revision Date: 09/16/2020 Products: Gateway Health℠ Medicaid Application: All participating hospitals and providers Page Number(s): 1 of 5 DISCLAIMER Gateway Health℠ (Gateway) medical policy is intended to serve only as a general reference resource regarding coverage for the services described. This policy does not constitute medical advice and is not intended to govern or otherwise influence medical decisions. POLICY STATEMENT Gateway Health℠ does not provide coverage in the Company’s Medicaid products for breast scintimammography. The service is considered experimental and investigational in all applications, including but not limited to use as an adjunct to mammography or in staging the axillary lymph nodes. This policy is designed to address medical necessity guidelines that are appropriate for the majority of individuals with a particular disease, illness or condition. Each person’s unique clinical circumstances warrant individual consideration, based upon review of applicable medical records. (Current applicable Pennsylvania HealthChoices Agreement Section V. Program Requirements, B. Prior Authorization of Services, 1. General Prior Authorization Requirements.) Policy No. MP-105-MD-PA Page 1 of 5 DEFINITIONS Prior Authorization Review Panel – A panel of representatives from within the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services who have been assigned organizational responsibility for the review, approval and denial of all PH-MCO Prior Authorization policies and procedures. Scintimammography A noninvasive supplemental diagnostic testing technology that requires the use of radiopharmaceuticals in order to detect tissues within the breast that accumulate higher levels of radioactive tracer that emit gamma radiation.
    [Show full text]
  • Breast Imaging H
    BREAST IMAGING H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute Rotation Director: Margaret Szabunio, M.D. General Goals : On this rotation, the resident will learn to interpret screening mammograms and to perform diagnostic mammography and ultrasound examinations of the breast. The resident will learn to formulate appropriate differential diagnoses and recommendations for various breast pathologies. The resident will also learn mammographic, ultrasound and MR breast biopsy techniques. Daily Work : The resident rotation begins after morning conference has concluded. In this rotation the resident shall learn BIRADS nomenclature and become proficient in using the PENRAD system for reporting. The resident will also learn the difference between screening and diagnostic mammography and how to perform a diagnostic work-up. (S)he will become familiarized with mammographic positioning and technique and quality assurance including MQSA and ACR requirements. The resident will learn to interpret mammographic images and the use of additional mammographic views for problem solving. (S)he will learn when and how to employ sonography in patient evaluation. The resident is REQUIRED to attend Thursday morning breast interdisciplinary conference. Preparing and reviewing cases for this conference is highly recommended. The resident will assist with and perform needle localizations, breast biopsy and cyst aspiration procedures using mammographic, stereotactic and sonographic techniques for each. The resident is expected to identify proper indications and contraindications for each procedure and how to identify and manage complications. The resident is expected to understand and complete informed consent for image guided breast procedures. On occasion, the resident may observe or assist with ductography procedures. Opportunity to observe and assist with MR guided breast procedures may also be available.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Cost & Coverage Issues with Diagnostic Breast Imaging
    Understanding Cost & Coverage Issues with Diagnostic Breast Imaging JANUARY 2019 The following report represents key findings from The Martec Group’s primary and secondary research efforts. The team was instructed to explore the cost and coverage issue with breast diagnostic imaging in order to equip Susan G. Komen with the information necessary to strategize efforts at the state and federal levels. TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. A Brief Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................... 3 II. Project Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Study Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 3 IV. Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 3 V. Patient Perspective ...................................................................................................................................... 4 VI. Health/Insurance Professional Perspective ...................................................................................... 5 VII. Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 6 VIII. Study Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Breast Ultrasound Accreditation Program Requirements
    Breast Ultrasound Accreditation Program Requirements OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 MANDATORY ACCREDITATION TIME REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 2 INTERPRETING PHYSICIAN .................................................................................................................................................... 2 SONOGRAPHER/TECHNOLOGIST ........................................................................................................................................... 5 EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 QUALITY CONTROL .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 ACCEPTANCE TESTING ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 ANNUAL SURVEY ................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Nipple Discharge
    New 2016 American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Evaluation of Nipple Discharge Variant 1: Physiologic nipple discharge. Female of any age. Initial imaging examination. Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL* Mammography diagnostic 1 See references [2,4-7]. ☢☢ Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic 1 See references [2,4-7]. ☢☢ US breast 1 See references [2,4-7]. O MRI breast without and with IV contrast 1 See references [2,4-7]. O MRI breast without IV contrast 1 See references [2,4-7]. O FDG-PEM 1 See references [2,4-7]. ☢☢☢☢ Sestamibi MBI 1 See references [2,4-7]. ☢☢☢ Ductography 1 See references [2,4-7]. ☢☢ Image-guided core biopsy breast 1 See references [2,4-7]. Varies Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast 1 Varies *Relative Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate Radiation Level Variant 2: Pathologic nipple discharge. Male or female 40 years of age or older. Initial imaging examination. Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL* See references [3,6,8,10,13,14,16,25- Mammography diagnostic 9 29,32,34,42-44,71-73]. ☢☢ See references [3,6,8,10,13,14,16,25- Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic 9 29,32,34,42-44,71-73]. ☢☢ US is usually complementary to mammography. It can be an alternative to mammography if the patient had a recent US breast 9 mammogram or is pregnant. See O references [3,5,10,12,13,16,25,30,31,45- 49]. MRI breast without and with IV contrast 1 See references [3,8,23,24,35,46,51-55].
    [Show full text]
  • Screening Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound
    Screening Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound Screening Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound Stanford now offers screening automated whole breast ultrasound (SAWBU) at our Stanford Medicine Cancer Center Palo Alto location. This is an optional test that can be used as a supplement to screening mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. It can find cancers that cannot be seen on mammograms due to overlap with dense breast tissue. Stanford uses automated whole breast technique, a new method developed for accuracy and efficiency. Who is a candidate for SAWBU What will happen during the How is SAWBU exam is examination? SAWBU examination? different? This is an optional test to supplement You will lie on your back, and gel will Screening automated screening mammography in women be applied to your breast. whole breast ultrasound who: uses sound waves (no radi- A large ultrasound handpiece will be • Undergo routine screening with ation) to create 3D pictures placed on the breast, and the system mammography. of the breast tissue, using will automatically take a “sweep” • Have no current signs or a new automated method that obtains ultrasound images of symptoms of breast cancer. developed for accuracy and the tissue from top to bottom. The • Have mammographically dense efficiency. handpiece will be repositioned to take (heterogeneously or extremely other “sweeps” to include all of the It can find cancers that dense) breasts. breast tissue. cannot be seen on mam- • Are not at “high risk" undergoing mograms alone due to supplemental screening with An exam of both breasts takes less overlap with dense breast breast MRI. Screening ultra- than 20 minutes to obtain.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Quantitative Accuracy of a Commercially-Available Positron Emission Mammography Scanner
    The Texas Medical Center Library DigitalCommons@TMC The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Biomedical Sciences Dissertations and Theses Center UTHealth Graduate School of (Open Access) Biomedical Sciences 8-2010 EVALUATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE ACCURACY OF A COMMERCIALLY-AVAILABLE POSITRON EMISSION MAMMOGRAPHY SCANNER Adam Springer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/utgsbs_dissertations Part of the Diagnosis Commons, Equipment and Supplies Commons, and the Other Medical Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Springer, Adam, "EVALUATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE ACCURACY OF A COMMERCIALLY-AVAILABLE POSITRON EMISSION MAMMOGRAPHY SCANNER" (2010). The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Dissertations and Theses (Open Access). 64. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/utgsbs_dissertations/64 This Thesis (MS) is brought to you for free and open access by the The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at DigitalCommons@TMC. It has been accepted for inclusion in The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Dissertations and Theses (Open Access) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@TMC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVALUATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE ACCURACY OF A COMMERCIALLY- AVAILABLE POSITRON EMISSION MAMMOGRAPHY SCANNER
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Reimbursement and Utilization for Invenia ABUS (Automated Breast Ultrasound)
    Commercial Reimbursement and Utilization for Invenia ABUS (Automated Breast Ultrasound) Background interpreting physician, referring physician/Health Care Provider (HCP), and patient.6 Specifically, the MQSA encourages education More than one-half of women younger than 50 years old and and outreach to patients from medical/scientific organizations, approximately one-third of women 50 years and older have industry, and interpreting physicians. In addition, outreach to dense breasts in the US.1 Higher breast density is associated referring physicians is encouraged from professional organizations with decreased mammographic sensitivity and specificity and and Continuing Medical Education (CME) providers.6 increased breast cancer risk.2 Due to the shortcomings of mammography in this population of women, an individualized Despite widely available options for additional screening and multimodal screening approach is recommended to improve the legislation mandating density inform, uptake and adoption of early detection of breast cancer. No clinical guidelines explicitly supplemental screening has lagged. In addition to knowledge recommend use of supplemental breast cancer screening on gaps, one study identified reimbursement uncertainties (e.g. women with dense breasts,3 but as of March 2018, 33 states have billing, coding and coverage) as a key factor for slow uptake. In enacted legislation requiring that breast density, in addition to 2015, the CPT® codebook was updated to include two new codes mammography results, be reported to women undergoing such for breast ultrasound, CPT 76641 and 76642, for complete and procedures; additional states have introduced or are currently limited exams, respectively.7 These codes replaced CPT 76645. working on legislation.4 Most states require specific density The new and old codes alike do not differentiate the technology inform language distinguishing dense (i.e., BI-RADS® C and D) used to perform an exam (handheld vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Breast Imaging Faqs
    Breast Imaging Frequently Asked Questions Update 2021 The following Q&As address Medicare guidelines on the reporting of breast imaging procedures. Private payer guidelines may vary from Medicare guidelines and from payer to payer; therefore, please be sure to check with your private payers on their specific breast imaging guidelines. Q: What differentiates a diagnostic from a screening mammography procedure? Medicare’s definitions of screening and diagnostic mammography, as noted in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS’) National Coverage Determination database, and the American College of Radiology’s (ACR’s) definitions, as stated in the ACR Practice Parameter of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography, are provided as a means of differentiating diagnostic from screening mammography procedures. Although Medicare’s definitions are consistent with those from the ACR, the ACR's definitions of screening and diagnostic mammography offer additional insight into what may be included in these procedures. Please go to the CMS and ACR Web site links noted below for more in- depth information about these studies. Medicare Definitions (per the CMS National Coverage Determination for Mammograms 220.4) “A diagnostic mammogram is a radiologic procedure furnished to a man or woman with signs and symptoms of breast disease, or a personal history of breast cancer, or a personal history of biopsy - proven benign breast disease, and includes a physician's interpretation of the results of the procedure.” “A screening mammogram is a radiologic procedure furnished to a woman without signs or symptoms of breast disease, for the purpose of early detection of breast cancer, and includes a physician’s interpretation of the results of the procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • ACR Practice Parameter for Performance of Contrast Enhanced
    The American College of Radiology, with more than 30,000 members, is the principal organization of radiologists, radiation oncologists, and clinical medical physicists in the United States. The College is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science of radiology, improve radiologic services to the patient, study the socioeconomic aspects of the practice of radiology, and encourage continuing education for radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and persons practicing in allied professional fields. The American College of Radiology will periodically define new practice parameters and technical standards for radiologic practice to help advance the science of radiology and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing practice parameters and technical standards will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated. Each practice parameter and technical standard, representing a policy statement by the College, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review and approval. The practice parameters and technical standards recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice parameter and technical standard by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. Revised 2018 (Resolution 34)* ACR PRACTICE PARAMETER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRAST- ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (MRI) OF THE BREAST PREAMBLE This document is an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate radiologic care for patients. Practice Parameters and Technical Standards are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care1.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnostic and Nuclear Medical Physics Residency Program Summary of Rotation Presentation Topics
    Diagnostic and Nuclear Medical Physics Residency Program Summary of Rotation Presentation Topics Last updated: 11/17/2020 Radiography (2020) Advanced image processing in digital radiography (2020) Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (2019) EOS scoliosis imaging system (2019) Dental radiographic technologies (2018) Radiographic techniques for scoliosis patients (2018) Exposure index in digital radiography (2017) Heel effect and how to mitigate it in clinical procedures, physics testing and image processing (2017) AAPM TG 151: ongoing quality control in digital radiography (2016) Routine applications, special procedures, and QC for projection radiography Fluoroscopy (2020) Fluoroscopy-guided trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (2020) The process of estimating peak skin dose (PSD) in fluoroscopy (2019) My clinical observations of non-interventional fluoroscopy procedures (2019) Medical physics guide to calculating peak skin dose from RDSR data (2018) My shadowing experience in non-interventional fluoroscopy (2018) Interventional fluoroscopy in cardiology (2017) Patient skin dose estimation in fluoroscopic procedures (2017) TheraSphere® Yttrium-90 microsphere therapy (2016) Clinical applications and methods to monitor and reduce patient dose in fluoroscopy Mammography (2020) Mammography screening recommendations and data (2020) Medical physicist’s tests in the 2018 ACR digital mammography QC manual (2019) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and tomosynthesis-guided biopsies (2019) Technology improvements
    [Show full text]