Galactography--the under-utilized procedure.

C J Aucreman

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10152261

Galactography--the under-utilized procedure.

C J Aucreman

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The patient-centered breast center should be utilizing a team approach, with technologists, radiologists, surgeons, pathologists, oncologists, therapists, etc. all working together to provide accurate, efficient and compassionate service to the patient. Patient intake questionnaires should include appropriate questions regarding nipple discharge. Members of the team such as secretaries and technologists need to be attuned to the significance of the patients complaints. We must keep utmost in our minds the many concerns of the patient. The comprehensive breast center should be a place where the patient can get answers. The Radiologist Breast Professional should be willing and able to ensure that they are provided. Galactography is one of the many ways that role can be fulfilled.

Explore related subjects

Breast Diseases Breast Neoplasms Female Health Services Misuse Humans Mammography Nipples Patient Care Team Professional-Patient Relations Radiology, Interventional United States Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

C J Aucreman. 1995. Galactography--the under-utilized procedure.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10152261/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

[Milk of calcium].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Breast Diseases↗

PubMed2004

Evaluation of the rupture of silicone breast implants by mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic patients: correlation with surgical findings.

CONTEXT: Different imaging methods can identify the integrity of breast implants and also the extent of possible silicone leakage. Mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are often used to evaluate the integrity of breast implants, usually in patients that are symptomatic for rupture. A group of clinically asymptomatic patients was taken as a sample. These patients wanted to remove or change their breast implants for psychological or cosmetic reasons. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of breast implant rupture in an asymptomatic population. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective study. SETTING: Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: The participants were 44 asymptomatic patients who subsequently had implants surgically removed. Eighty-three implants were evaluated by both film-screen mammography and high-resolution sonography and 77 implants were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging. The sensitivity and specificity of mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were assessed using predetermined diagnostic criteria for implant rupture. All radiological signs were discussed and false positives and false negatives were retrospectively evaluated to identify the pitfalls in the investigations. RESULTS: The respective sensitivity and specificity of mammography were 20% and 89%; sonography, 30% and 81%; and magnetic resonance imaging, 64% and 77%. The differences between patients with breast implants for cosmetic and oncological reasons were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that magnetic resonance imaging seems to be the best imaging method on its own for the evaluation of rupturing among asymptomatic patients.

Breast Diseases↗

PubMed2004

Differentiating nonhigh-grade duct carcinoma in situ from benign breast lesions.

This study was undertaken to determine the discriminating cytological features between nonhigh-grade duct carcinoma in situ (NHGDCIS) and benign breast lesions and to determine any histological characteristics which would influence the cytological categorization. Smears of 12 each of histologically confirmed NHGDCIS and benign breast lesions were reviewed with regard to cellularity, cell discohesion, nuclear atypia, crowding of cells, tubule formation, necrosis, and presence of bare atypical nuclei and regular bare bipolar nuclei, and statistically analyzed. Architectural pattern, presence of necrosis, and the size of the lesion assessed at histological examination were compared with the initial cytological categorization. NHGDCIS lesions showed more cell discohesion (P = 0.04), bare atypical nuclei (P = 0.05), necrosis (P = 0.03), and sparse bare bipolar nuclei (P = 0.02) than benign lesions. These differences were statistically significant. Cellularity (P = 0.8), nuclear atypia (P = 0.06), crowding of cells (P = 0.1), and tubule formation did not show a significant difference. Six (out of six lesions) with a solid architectural pattern and six (of seven) with necrosis could be cytologically categorized as suspicious or malignant. Size of the lesion did not influence this. We conclude that cell discohesion, bare atypical and bare bipolar nuclei, and necrosis are discriminating features between NHGDCIS and benign breast lesions and NHGDCIS lesions with a solid architectural pattern and necrosis are more likely to be satisfactorily categorized cytologically.

Breast Diseases↗