This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Women's Health  • Women's Health, Other  • Breast Cancer  • Mammography  • Alert me on articles by topic

Douglas Reintgen, MD
Tampa, Fla

Arch Surg. 2000;135:1089.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

One hundred sixty-four patients underwent 165 needle/dye-localization biopsies in the reported series from the City of Hope Cancer Center (Duarte, Calif). The authors estimate that specimen mammography (SM) was only beneficial in 1.8% of the patients and no cancer was missed. On the other hand, SM was incorrect in 24.8% of patients and added $60,522 in costs to the institution with an additional 55 hours of operating time.

The main reason given in support of SM is that it allows the surgeon to judge the adequacy of the excision and perhaps avoid reexcisions for negative margins and for medical-legal purposes. Specimen mammography is incorrect in up to 44% of cases, resulting in the unnecessary excision of tissue, missed tumors, and a false sense of security for the surgeon. Specimen mammography is considered wrong when there is a discordance between its outcome and the pathological and postoperative mammographic . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Is Specimen Mammography Beneficial?
David N. Bimston, Gregory G. Bebb, and Lawrence D. Wagman
Arch Surg. 2000;135(9):1083-1086.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT