Breast imaging in women under 35 with symptomatic breast disease
- 1 May 1993
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The British Journal of Radiology
- Vol. 66 (785) , 394-397
- https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-66-785-394
Abstract
With the increasing utilization of mammography, young women under the age of 35 are being referred for mammographic examination more frequently. A review of the mammograms of 159 consecutive patients aged under 35 was conducted to evaluate the clinical value of the examination in the age group for whom the probability of malignancy is low. 74% of patients referred had no discrete palpable mass and presented predominantly with lumpy or tender breasts, the remaining 24% had a discrete palpable mass. In neither group did radiographic examination beneficially influence clinical management. We propose protocol where no imaging is performed in women under 35 in the absence of a palpable mass unless there is a localized bloody discharge or a strong family history or previous personal history of breast cancer. In patients with a palpable mass, ultrasound should be performed initially to identify simple cysts and if negative only then progressing to mammography.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Diagnosing breast carcinoma in young women.BMJ, 1991
- The role of US in breast imaging.Radiology, 1990
- Indications for breast imaging in women under age 35 years.Radiology, 1989
- The Value of Mammography Screening in Women Under Age 50 YearsInvestigative Radiology, 1989
- Wendell G. Scott memorial lecture. Breast cancer screening: all's well that ends well, or much ado about nothing?American Journal of Roentgenology, 1988
- Case for conservative management of selected fibro-adenomas of the breastBritish Journal of Surgery, 1987
- The Control of Breast Cancer Through Mammography ScreeningRadiologic Clinics of North America, 1987
- Mammography in women under age 30: is there clinical benefit?Radiology, 1986
- Radiation risk from mammography: is it clinically significant?American Journal of Roentgenology, 1984