PURPOSE: To assess the usefulness of the routine supplementary magnifi
cation view in patients who have undergone breast conservation therapy
. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred seventy-one mammograms in 392 pa
tients were evaluated. Conventional craniocaudal and mediolateral obli
que views were obtained in each patient. After a preliminary interpret
ation was made, a magnification view of the excision site was evaluate
d and any additional information was documented. RESULTS: In 115 exami
nations (24%), the magnification view was considered necessary to bett
er evaluate equivocal or questionable calcifications seen on standard
views. In 18 cases (4%), review of the magnification view influenced t
he decision to perform biopsy. None of the magnification views that we
re considered unnecessary caused the interpretation made from conventi
onal views to be altered. CONCLUSION: Magnification mammographic views
should be obtained in patients who have undergone breast conservation
therapy only when considered necessary after review of findings on co
nventional views.