Artifacts that mimic breast calcification
Updates to Article Attributes
Body
was changed:
Artifacts that mimic breast calcification can arise from a number of external sources of radiopaque material that leave particulate residue on or within the skin. These include:
-
deodorants/antiperspirants, particularly solid applicator products 1
deodorants - powders, such as those containing talc 2,3
-
soap, which may contain radiopaque fillers/additives that are left on the skin
: mostafter inadequate rinsing, along with hard water containing calcium salts 4 - tattoos, which contain metallic pigments 5
For these reasons, most practices recommend that clients forpatients undergoing mammography do not use deodorant or perfumeapply skin products on the day of the study for this reason. The residue from deodorant is a very fineWhen the technologist recognizes the artifact, dense, misty collection of axillary opacities that mimic very fine cutaneous calcifications. Most technologists will wipeit can be resolved by wiping the axilla and breast down with a wet cloth and repeatrepeating the view. The artifact will be gone. In practice, this very rarely presents a diagnostic dilemma.
See also
-<p><strong>Artifacts that mimic breast calcification</strong> can arise from a number of sources. These include:</p><ul>-<li>-<strong>deodorants </strong>on skin: most practices recommend that clients for mammography do not use deodorant or perfume on the day of the study for this reason. The residue from deodorant is a very fine, dense, misty collection of axillary opacities that mimic very fine cutaneous calcifications. Most technologists will wipe the axilla down with a wet cloth and repeat the view. The artifact will be gone. In practice, this very rarely presents a diagnostic dilemma.</li>-<li>-<strong>fingerprint </strong>artifact on film: in digital imaging, this is not a problem. This used to be an issue in the days of film screen mammography when indifferent handling in the darkroom could lead to a fingerprint on an image. Luckily a fingerprint looks like a fingerprint. Issues did arise when a portion of a print whorl appeared on an image. Luckily you could identify the culprit.</li>-</ul><h4>See also</h4><ul><li><a href="/articles/breast-calcifications">breast calcification</a></li></ul>- +<p><strong>Artifacts that mimic breast calcification</strong> can arise from a number of external sources of radiopaque material that leave particulate residue on or within the skin. These include:</p><ul>
- +<li>deodorants/antiperspirants, particularly solid applicator products <sup>1</sup>
- +</li>
- +<li>powders, such as those containing talc <sup>2,3</sup>
- +</li>
- +<li>soap, which may contain radiopaque fillers/additives that are left on the skin after inadequate rinsing, along with hard water containing calcium salts <sup>4</sup>
- +</li>
- +<li>tattoos, which contain metallic pigments <sup>5</sup>
- +</li>
- +</ul><p>For these reasons, most practices recommend that patients undergoing mammography do not apply skin products on the day of the study. When the technologist recognizes the artifact, it can be resolved by wiping the axilla and breast down with a wet cloth and repeating the view.</p><h4>See also</h4><ul><li><a href="/articles/breast-calcifications">breast calcification</a></li></ul>
References changed:
- 1. Mesurolle B, Ceccarelli J, Karp I, Sun S, El-Khoury M. Effects of antiperspirant aluminum percent composition and mode of application on mock microcalcifications in mammography. (2014) European journal of radiology. 83 (2): 279-82. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.10.015">doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.10.015</a> - <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24262976">Pubmed</a> <span class="ref_v4"></span>
- 2. Hogge JP, Palmer CH, Muller CC, Little ST, Smith DC, Fatouros PP, de Paredes ES. Quality assurance in mammography: artifact analysis. (1999) Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 19 (2): 503-22. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.2.g99mr13503">doi:10.1148/radiographics.19.2.g99mr13503</a> - <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10194792">Pubmed</a> <span class="ref_v4"></span>
- 3. Avelar MS, Almeida O, Alvares BR. Mammographic artifact leading to false-positive result. (2015) Radiologia brasileira. 48 (3): 198-9. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2013.0003">doi:10.1590/0100-3984.2013.0003</a> - <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26185350">Pubmed</a> <span class="ref_v4"></span>
- 4. Thomas DR, Fisher MS, Caroline DF. Case report: soap--another artefact that can mimic intramammary calcifications. (1995) Clinical radiology. 50 (1): 64-6. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-9260(05)82971-x">doi:10.1016/s0009-9260(05)82971-x</a> - <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7834981">Pubmed</a> <span class="ref_v4"></span>
- 5. Brown RC, Zuehlke RL, Ehrhardt JC, Jochimsen PR. Tattoos simulating calcifications on xeroradiographs of the breast. (1981) Radiology. 138 (3): 583-4. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.138.3.7465832">doi:10.1148/radiology.138.3.7465832</a> - <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7465832">Pubmed</a> <span class="ref_v4"></span>
Unable to process the form. Check for errors and try again.