DOCSLIB.ORG

Screen-Film Mammography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Screen-Film Mammography Refer to: Sickles EA: Xeromammography versus screen-film mam- mography-Pros and cons of the two techniques (Infor- beams (40 to 50 kVp), produce satisfactory mam- mation). West J Med 134:273-274, Mar 1981 mograms without uniform-thickness breast com- pression and, therefore, can be used successfully Information with standard ceiling-mounted, general-purpose x-ray units (with few exceptions, screen-film tech- niques cannot). As a result, xeromammography is considerably more convenient and somewhat less expensive than screen-film techniques, especi- Xeromammography Versus ally for radiology departments or offices that do a low volume of mammography work. Screen-Film Mammography There are also inherent differences in image Pros and Cons of the Two Techniques quality between xeroradiographic and screen-film mammograms that merit discussion.1'3 The edge- EDWARD A. SICKLES, MD enhancement property unique to xeroradiog- San Francisco raphy facilitates the imaging of tiny breast cal- cifications, which may be the only indication, radiographic or otherwise, that breast cancer is XEROMAMMOGRAPHY and screen-film mammogra- present. Screen-film mammograms, on the other phy are the predominant techniques being used hand, have comparatively high inherent contrast, for the radiographic detection of breast cancer.' thereby facilitating the imaging of poorly defined Xeroradiography, a technique similar to the stan- breast masses, which also may be the only mani- dard photocopying process, works on the principle festation of carcinoma. Because approximately that x-rays partially dissipate a uniform electrical half of mammographically detectable cancer of charge applied to a selenium-alloy plate, thereby the breast presents with microcalcifications and producing a latent (electrostatic) radiographic the other half presents as poorly defined noncal- image, which is subsequently developed by dusting cified masses, there is no relative advantage to the plate with charged particles of (blue) plastic either technique, nor is it possible to know a powder. The colored powder is then transferred priori which technique is best for an individual and bonded to paper by a heat-sealing process, patient. More important, these differences in resulting in a blue and white image. Screen-film image quality between xeromammography and radiography is a more conventional technique, screen-film mammography are quite subtle and using regular x-ray film but coupled with a radi- of little clinical significance. Based on my own ographic screen, a device that converts x-rays to experience involving malignant lesions radio- visible light. The advantage of the screen is that graphed with both techniques, one technique will light darkens x-ray film much more efficiently permit carcinoma to be diagnosed with a greater than x-rays themselves, thereby producing a degree of confidence than the other approximately properly exposed image with only a small fraction 25 percent of the time, but the circumstance in of the x-rays otherwise needed. which cancer is detected by one technique but not Several differences between xeroradiography the other occurs very infrequently.3 and screen-film radiography cause important dis- Despite the lack of a substantial difference in parities in the manner in which these two tech- the quality of images between xeromammography niques can be adapted to breast imaging. Screen- and screen-film mammography, many radiologists film techniques require both uniform-thickness express a distinct preference for one or the other breast compression and very low-energy x-ray technique; interestingly, these personal preferences beams (25 to 28 kVp) foat diagnostically acceptable almost always are based-on extensive use of one images. 2 This necessitates the use of specialized technique and little or no familiarity with the x-ray equipment designed specifically for mam- other. There is, in fact, general agreement among mographic examinations.2 Xeroradiography tech- experienced mammographers that either technique niques, on the other hand, use higher-energy x-ray produces excellent results, if done by skilled per- sonnel using proper equipment. Most unfavorable The author is Chief, Mammography Section, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, School of experiences with the screen-film technique re- Medicine. re- Reprint requests to: Edward A. Sickles, MD, Chief, Mammog- ported by those favoring xeromammography raphy Section, Department of Radiology, M-396, University of from to to screen-film California, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA 94143. sult trying adapt imaging THE WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 273 INFORMATION the same general-purpose x-ray equipment that raphy produce images of very similar quality, with works so well for xeromammography; such an un- only subtle, probably insignificant differences in fortunate combination of equipment and technique informational content. The major differences be- at best produces substandard images. Very few tween the two techniques are as follows: ( 1 ) xero- negative experiences with xeromammography have radiographic processing can be done using con- been reported by screen-film mammographers- ventional x-ray units, whereas screen-film imaging they rarely consider switching to the xeroradiogra- requires specialized x-ray equipment and (2) phic technique because (1 ) they already have in- screen-film mammography imparts a considerably vested in the necessary specialized mammography lower dose of radiation than does xeromammog- equipment; (2) xeromammography is a technique raphy. The overall trend among radiologists is that uses much higher doses of radiation, and (3) clearly toward screen-film imaging, but xeromam- very few breakdowns interrupt the day-to-day mography still retains a substantial following, operation of screen-film mammography, whereas primarily because of economic considerations. is noted for xeromammography considerable REFERENCES "downtime" because of repeated malfunctions in 1. Gold RH: Breast, In Steckel RJ, Kagan AR (Eds): Diagno- sis and Staging of Cancer: A Radiologic Approach. Philadelphia, the image-processing apparatus. W.B. Saunders Co, 1976, pp 263-287 2. Logan WW, Norlund AW: Screen-film mammography tech- Among the various differences between xero- nique: Compression and other factors, In Logan WW, Muntz EP mammography and screen-film (Eds ): Reduced Dose Mammography. New York, Masson, 1979, mammography, pp 415428 perhaps the most important concerns radiation 3. Sickles EA: Mammographic interpretation: False negatives and heroic positives, In Logan WW, Muntz EP (Eds): Reduced dose; here, screen-film technique has the clear- Dose Mammography. New York, Masson, 1979, pp 479485 cut lower in 4. Hammerstein GR, Miller DW, White DR, et al: Absorbed advantage, being considerably dose.4 radiation dose in The most pertinent of the several dose determina- mammography. Radiology 130:485491, Feb 1979 tions is the "average dose to mammary glandular tissue," and the dose for screen-film mammog- raphy is a fourth to a tenth that for xeromam- Refer to: Heimbach DM, Engrav LH, Marvin JA: Advances in mography. Although it remains unclear whether burn care (Information). West J Med 134:274-279, Mar the radiation risk of mammography, is great 1981 enough to be clinically meaningful, there is gen- eral agreement that because the risk of radiation- Information induced cancer appears to be directly proportional to radiation dose, any reduction in dose is ac- companied by a parallel decrease in risk. Over the past several years there has been considerable reduction in radiation doses for all mammography Advances in Burn Care techniques, so that even the xeromammography DAVID M. HEIM.BACH, MD breast tissue dose is now less than 1 rad per LOREN H. ENGRAV, MD examination at most installations. Screen-film JANET A. MARVIN, RN, MN mammography doses are so low now that the Seattle lowest of these approaches the dose of a standard x-ray examination of the chest. The dose differ- ential between the screen-film and xeromammog- EACH YEAR in the United States approximately raphy techniques is most meaningful when con- 2,000,000 people sustain burns serious enough to sidering the screening of asymptomatic women. require seeing a physician. Of these, 50,000 people In this situation we face a relatively low yield of are admitted to hospital and approximately 12,000 cancer detection and the cumulative dose of of them die. multiple mammographies; the benefits derived As late as 1960 a 30 percent total body surface do not exceed the presumed risk by as great a area (TBSA) burn carried a mortality of 50 per- cent. At in margin as they do for diagnostic mammography present, many specialized burn centers (the one-time examination of women with signs From the Department of Surgery, University of Washington Burn and Trauma Centers, University of Washington, Harborview or symptoms that suggest the possibility of breast Medical Center, Seattle. Submitted July 9, 1980. cancer). Reprint requests to: David M. Heimbach, MD, Department of Surgery, ZA-16, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Ave., Xeromammography and screen-film mammog- Seattle, WA 98104. 274 MARCH 1981 * 134 * 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Screening Techniques
    2. SCREENING TECHNIQUES 2.1 X-ray techniques the contrast and the spatial resolution are poor, making detection of small lesions difficult. The The original technique for mammography mammogram in Fig. 2.1b, from the same era, is of was introduced by Salomon in Germany in 1913, much higher quality and illustrates a cancer seen 18 years after the discovery of X-rays by Roentgen on the basis of an irregularly shaped mass (black (Salomon, 1913). A mammogram is formed by arrow). Fig. 2.1c shows a digital mammogram, recording the two-dimensional (2D) pattern of illustrating the enormous improvement that X-rays transmitted through the volume of the has occurred in both technology and technique. breast onto an image receptor. Breast cancer is Breast positioning, penetration of the tissue, and detected radiographically on the basis of four contrast are excellent, allowing visualization of major signs: a mass density with specific shape a small area of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and border characteristics, microcalcifications, seen on the basis of microcalcifications, and, architectural distortions, and asymmetries more importantly, providing the opportunity to between the radiological appearance of the left detect an immediately adjacent high-grade inva- and right breast (Kopans, 2006). These signs sive cancer 1.7 mm in diameter. are often very subtle, and in order for them to Excellent image quality is an essential compo- be detected accurately and when the cancer is at nent but not, on its own, a sufficient component the smallest detectable size, the technical image to ensure a high level of accuracy in cancer detec- quality of the mammograms must be excellent tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic X Rays
    Disclaimer - For assistance accessing this document or additional information, please contact [email protected]. EPA 520/4-76-019 FEDERAL GUIDANCE REPORT NO. 9 RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDANCE FOR DIAGNOSTIC X RAYS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON MEDICAL RADIATION FEDERAL GUIDANCE REPORT NO. 9 RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDANCE FOR DIAGNOSTIC X RAYS Interagency Working Group on Medical Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 October 1976 PREFACE The authority of the Federal Radiation Council to provide radiation protection guidance was transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency on December 2, 1970, by Reorganization Plan No. 3. Prior to this transfer, the Federal Radiation Council developed reports which provided the basis for guidance recommended to the President for use by Federal agencies in developing standards for a wide range of radiation exposure circumstances. This report, which was prepared in cooperation with an Interagency Working Group on Medical Radiation formed on July 5, 1974, constitutes a similar objective to provide the basis for recommendations to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure due to medical uses of diagnostic x rays. The Interagency Working Group developed its recommendations with the help of two subcommittees. The Subcommittee on Prescription of Exposure to X rays examined factors to eliminate clinically unproductive examinations and the Subcommittee on Technic of Exposure Prevention examined factors to assure the use of optimal technic in performing x-ray examinations. Both subcommittees also considered the importance of appropriate and properly functioning equipment in producing radiographs of the required diagnostic quality with minimal exposure. Reports by these subcommittees were made available for public comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Amorphous Lead Oxide (A-Pbo): Suppression of Signal Lag Via Engineering of the Layer Structure Received: 12 June 2017 O
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Amorphous lead oxide (a-PbO): suppression of signal lag via engineering of the layer structure Received: 12 June 2017 O. Semeniuk1,2, O. Grynko1,2, G. Juska3 & A. Reznik2,4 Accepted: 25 September 2017 Presence of a signal lag is a bottle neck of performance for many non-crystalline materials, considered Published: xx xx xxxx for dynamic radiation sensing. Due to inadequate lag-related temporal performance, polycrystalline layers of CdZnTe, PbI2, HgI2 and PbO are not practically utilized, despite their superior X-ray sensitivity and low production cost (even for large area detectors). In the current manuscript, we show that a technological step to replace nonhomogeneous disorder in polycrystalline PbO with homogeneous amorphous PbO structure suppresses signal lag and improves time response to X-ray irradiation. In addition, the newly developed amorphous lead oxide (a-PbO) possesses superior X-ray sensitivity in terms of electron-hole pair creation energy W± in comparison with amorphous selenium – currently the only photoconductor used as an X-ray-to-charge transducer in the state-of-the-art direct conversion X-ray medical imaging systems. The proposed advances of the deposition process are low cost, easy to implement and with certain customization might potentially be applied to other materials, thus paving the way to their wide-range commercial use. Amorphous and polycrystalline modifcations of wide band gap semiconductors are of paramount importance in modern electronics, since they allow large device area production at low cost. However, the transition from crystalline to non-crystalline materials is technologically challenging since structural disorder may lead to degra- dation of the material performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiographic Diagnostic Aids: a Review © 2019 IJADS Received: 01-02-2019 Dr
    International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences 2019; 5(2): 271-276 ISSN Print: 2394-7489 ISSN Online: 2394-7497 IJADS 2019; 5(2): 271-276 Radiographic diagnostic Aids: A review © 2019 IJADS www.oraljournal.com Received: 01-02-2019 Dr. Panna Mangat, Dr. Anil K Tomer, Dr. Afnan Ajaz Raina, Dr. Faizan Accepted: 03-03-2019 Bin Ayub, Dr. Akankshita Behera, Dr. Nitish Mittal, Dr. Megna Bhatt Dr. Panna Mangat Professor, Department of Conservative and Dr. Ayush Tyagi Dentistry & Endodontics D.J. College of Dental Sciences and Research, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, Abstract India Presently diagnosis has shown a major growth in the field of Endodontics. Newer technologies have evolved in a way that human elements are being enriched in a much better way to ensure proper and Dr. Anil K Tomer Professor and Head, Department of correct diagnosis. Therefore, for a successful diagnostician, a necessity arises to keep abreast of all the Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics new methods for correct diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this review therefore is to assess the D.J. College of Dental Sciences and usefulness of some radiographic diagnostic aids and techniques used in endodontic therapy to make the Research, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar correct pulpal diagnosis. Pradesh, India Dr. Afnan Ajaz Raina Keywords: Radiographic diagnostic, aids, endodontics Post Graduate Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics D.J. College of Dental Sciences and Introduction Research, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India Diagnosis is arguably the most critical component of all dental treatment, and Endodontics is no exception. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary describes clinical diagnosis as ‘‘the Dr.
    [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]
  • What You Should Know About Breast Cancer Screening
    Cancer AnswerLineTM WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT BREAST CANCER SCREENING Women should speak to their health care provider about their risk of breast cancer and whether a screening test is right for them, as well as to review the risks and benefits of screening. The purpose of screening is to find disease early; THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY’S ideally before symptoms appear. Almost all diseases, RECOMMENDATIONS: including cancer, are easier to treat in an earlier • Women between 40 and 44 have the option to stage as opposed to an advanced stage. start screening with a mammogram every year. Women 45 to 54 should get mammograms every While experts may have different opinions regarding • year. when to begin mammography screening and at what frequency, all major U.S. organizations, • Women 55 and older can switch to a mammogram including the American Cancer Society, the every other year, or they can choose to continue National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the yearly mammograms. Screening should continue U.S. Preventive Services Task Force continue to as long as a woman is in good health and is recommend regular screening mammography to expected to live 10 more years or longer. reduce breast cancer mortality. Breast cancer • All women should understand what to expect mortality rates have continued to decrease in the when getting a mammogram for breast cancer United States due to advances in screening and screening—what the test can and cannot do. treatment over the last 20 years. These recommendations apply to asymptomatic Breast cancer screening is broken down into women aged 40 years or older who do not have different classifications based the patient’s age, level preexisting breast cancer or a previously diagnosed of risk (how likely they are to get breast cancer), and high-risk breast lesion and who are not at high risk strength of the recommendation.
    [Show full text]
  • Breast Self-Examination Practices in Women Who
    Breast self-examination practices in women who have had a mastectomy by Carole H Crowell A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Nursing Montana State University © Copyright by Carole H Crowell (1990) Abstract: Research findings indicate that breast cancer mortality has not decreased significantly in the past decade. While research continues on the development of more effective therapies, techniques for early detection are presently receiving greater attention. The use of breast self-examination (BSE) has been emphasized in the media and professional literature but little emphasis has been placed on BSE for women who have had a mastectomy. The purposes of this study were to determine if women who have had breast surgery do breast self-examination and to describe barriers that block this behavior. An assumption was made that women who have had surgery for breast cancer do not examine their remaining breast tissue and scar site. A qualitative study was conducted using a grounded theory approach to explore and describe behavior of women who have had a mastectomy. Analytic strategies used for data analysis were the constant comparative method, theoretical sampling, open coding, memo writing, and recoding. A convenience sample of twelve informants was selected from a mastectomy support group located in a rural community in Montana. BSE was viewed as a health-promoting behavior and was found to relate to certain variables of Penders (1987) Health Promotion Model. Findings of this study indicate a majority of women perform BSE after their mastectomy but most do not examine their scar site.
    [Show full text]
  • 5. Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening
    5. EFFECTIVENESS OF BREAST CANCER SCREENING This section considers measures of screening Nevertheless, the performance of a screening quality and major beneficial and harmful programme should be monitored to identify and outcomes. Beneficial outcomes include reduc- remedy shortcomings before enough time has tions in deaths from breast cancer and in elapsed to enable observation of mortality effects. advanced-stage disease, and the main example of a harmful outcome is overdiagnosis of breast (a) Screening standards cancer. The absolute reduction in breast cancer The randomized trials performed during mortality achieved by a particular screening the past 30 years have enabled the suggestion programme is the most crucial indicator of of several indicators of quality assurance for a programme’s effectiveness. This may vary screening services (Day et al., 1989; Tabár et according to the risk of breast cancer death in al., 1992; Feig, 2007; Perry et al., 2008; Wilson the target population, the rate of participation & Liston, 2011), including screening participa- in screening programmes, and the time scale tion rates, rates of recall for assessment, rates observed (Duffy et al., 2013). The technical quality of percutaneous and surgical biopsy, and breast of the screening, in both radiographic and radio- cancer detection rates. Detection rates are often logical terms, also has an impact on breast cancer classified by invasive/in situ status, tumour size, mortality. The observational analysis of breast lymph-node status, and histological grade. cancer mortality and of a screening programme’s Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 show selected quality performance may be assessed against several standards developed in England by the National process indicators.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Working Group on Digital Mammography: Digital Displays and Workstation Design
    Report of the Working Group on Digital Mammography: Digital Displays and Workstation Design March 9-10, 1998 Washington, DC Sponsored by Public Health Service’s Office on Women’s Health and National Cancer Institute Editors Faina Shtern, M.D. Daniel Winfield, M.S. USPHS—Office on Women’s Health Research Triangle Institute Contributors Fred Behlen, Ph.D. Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Ph.D. University of Chicago University of Arizona Hartwig Blume, Ph.D. Harold Kundel, M.D. Phillips Medical Systems University of Pennsylvania Medical Center Michael J. Flynn, Ph.D. Hans Roehrig, Ph.D. Henry Ford Health System University of Arizona Bradley Hemminger, Ph.D. Peter E. Shile, M.D. University of North Carolina Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology H. K. Huang, D.Sc. Edward Sickles, M.D. University of California at San Francisco University of California at San Francisco Martin Yaffe, Ph.D., M.Sc. University of Toronto Acknowledgments Daniel Sullivan, M.D. Wanda K. Jones, Dr.P.H. Robert E. Wittes, M.D. National Cancer Institute USPHS—Office on Women’s Health National Cancer Institute Contents Speakers and Panelists........................................................................................................................................................ii Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................1 Goals of the Joint PHS OWH/NCI Working Group..........................................................................................................2
    [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]
  • Diffraction-Enhanced X-Ray Imaging of in Vitro Breast Tumours
    UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI REPORT SERIES IN PHYSICS HU-P-D113 DIFFRACTION-ENHANCED X-RAY IMAGING OF IN VITRO BREAST TUMOURS Jani Keyriläinen Division of X-ray Physics Department of Physical Sciences Faculty of Science University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland Department of Oncology Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki, Finland ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Science of the University of Helsinki, for public criticism in Auditorium D101 of the Department of Physical Sciences (Physicum), Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2, on October 29th, 2004, at 12 o’clock noon. Helsinki 2004 ISSN 0356-0961 ISBN 952-10-1655-8 ISBN 952-10-1656-6 (pdf-version) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/ Helsinki 2004 Yliopistopaino PREFACE This thesis is based on research done at the Division of X-ray Physics, Department of Physical Sciences, University of Helsinki (HU, Finland), at the Medical Beamline ID17, European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF, Grenoble, France), and at the departments of Oncology, Pathology and Radiology, Helsinki University Central Hospital (HUCH, Finland), all of which are acknowledged. I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Juhani Keinonen, Ph.D., Head of the Department of Physical Sciences, and to Professor Seppo Manninen, Ph.D., former Head of the Division of X-ray Physics, for the opportunity to work at the Department. I also wish to thank Professor Heikki Joensuu, M.D., Ph.D., Head of the Department of Oncology, and William Thomlinson, Ph.D., former Beamline Responsible, ID17, for allowing me to use the outstanding working facilities of their institutions. I am most grateful to my supervisors, Professor Pekka Suortti, Ph.D., Department of Physical Sciences, and Docent Mikko Tenhunen, Ph.D., Chief Physicist of the Department of Oncology, for proposing to me the topic of this study and guiding me throughout this research work.
    [Show full text]
  • Society of Breast Imaging Statement on Breast Imaging During the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Society of Breast Imaging Statement on Breast Imaging during the COVID-19 Pandemic The Society of Breast Imaging’s core purpose is “to save lives and minimize the impact of breast cancer.” To fulfill that purpose, the SBI strongly advocates for routine annual screening mammography for all women starting at age 40 because the data clearly show this is the best approach to minimizing the mortality due to breast cancer. However, the outbreak of a disease due to a novel strain of coronavirus, COVID-19, raises the difficult question of whether we can provide appropriate screening while also minimizing the impact of this pandemic to our communities. Many of our members have voiced concern that providing routine care for asymptomatic women who may be unknowing carriers of COVID-19 places others at risk. Women seeking ongoing care for breast cancer may be immunocompromised and therefore at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing a severe form of the disease. Others at potential risk include otherwise healthy patients who share waiting areas, restrooms, elevators, and handrails with those unknowingly carrying the disease. Our breast imaging technologists are also at risk, particularly given the very close person-to-person contact required to adequately position patients for high-quality imaging. Finally, maintaining full patient schedules places physicians at risk of contracting the illness. Once exposed or infected, these radiologists may not be available to care for women with more urgent breast imaging needs. SBI recommends that individual facilities delay screening breast imaging exams for several weeks or a few months. Furthermore, diagnostic studies on women without a clinically concerning symptom, such as patients with six month follow-up, should also be delayed.
    [Show full text]