Literature DB >> 15127242

The choice of the correct imaging modality in breast cancer management.

Emilio Bombardieri1, Luca Gianni.   

Abstract

This brief overview discusses which of the diagnostic options are more reliable and effective for breast cancer imaging with a view to avoiding the unjustified use of techniques that are suboptimal. The technological development of diagnostic imaging has been very impressive, and both radiological (mammography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and nuclear medicine tools (bone scan, planar and SPECT scintigraphy, sentinel node biopsy, positron emission tomography) have helped to overcome past limitations in the detection of small lesions. Furthermore, new approaches have been developed that permit successful differential diagnosis of doubtful lesions and rapid identification of systemic metastases, and allow non-invasive characterisation of the biology of cancer tissue. There is evidence that these advances may have helped in optimising therapeutic strategies. Importantly, the metabolic information provided by nuclear medicine procedures may be combined with the anatomical data supplied by radiological techniques in order to assist in predicting tumour response, planning radiotherapy and monitoring patient outcome. It is difficult to formulate conclusive diagnostic guidelines for application in the work-up of breast cancer, because while the role of some examinations, such as mammography and ultrasonography, is well established, that of others, such as magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography, is still a matter of debate. There is a need for further prospective evaluations with appropriate clinical trials designed to evaluate the impact of these approaches in improving survival and quality of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15127242     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-004-1541-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  65 in total

Review 1.  Current status of sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy: facts and controversies.

Authors:  James W Jakub; Solange Pendas; Douglas S Reintgen
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2003

2.  Mammography and sonography in young symptomatic women.

Authors:  Ferris M Hall
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: primum non nocere.

Authors:  Monica Morrow
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis with contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance mammography.

Authors:  Nermin Tuncbilek; Ercument Unlu; Hakki M Karakas; Bilge Cakir; Filiz Ozyilmaz
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 5.  Mammography and breast cancer: the new era.

Authors:  L Tabár; P B Dean
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.561

6.  The usefulness of 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT scintimammography in the detection of small size primary breast carcinomas.

Authors:  Angela Spanu; Orazio Schillaci; Giovanni Battista Meloni; Alberto Porcu; Pierina Cottu; Susanna Nuvoli; Antonio Falchi; Francesca Chessa; Maria Elisabetta Solinas; Giuseppe Madeddu
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.650

7.  Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions.

Authors:  C Walter; K Scheidhauer; A Scharl; U-J Goering; P Theissen; H Kugel; T Krahe; U Pietrzyk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  18F-FDG PET evaluation of the response to therapy for lymphoma and for breast, lung, and colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Lale Kostakoglu; Stanley J Goldsmith
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 9.  The role of positron emission tomographic imaging in breast cancer.

Authors:  Michelle D McDonough; Elizabeth R DePeri; Betty A Mincey
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.075

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a comparative study with mammography and ultrasonography.

Authors:  Tunetake Hata; Hiromasa Takahashi; Kenichi Watanabe; Masato Takahashi; Kazunori Taguchi; Tomoo Itoh; Satoru Todo
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.113

View more
  4 in total

1.  The high angiogenic activity in very early breast cancer enables reliable imaging with VEGFR2-targeted microbubbles (BR55).

Authors:  Jessica Bzyl; Moritz Palmowski; Anne Rix; Susanne Arns; Jean-Marc Hyvelin; Sibylle Pochon; Josef Ehling; Simone Schrading; Fabian Kiessling; Wiltrud Lederle
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Breast image registration techniques: a survey.

Authors:  Yujun Guo; Radhika Sivaramakrishna; Cheng-Chang Lu; Jasjit S Suri; Swamy Laxminarayan
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Orthopaedic perspective on bone metastasis.

Authors:  Alan P Molloy; Gary C O'Toole
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2013-07-18

4.  Added diagnostic value of SPECT to evaluate bone metastases in breast cancer patients with normal whole body bone scan.

Authors:  Seyed Mohammad Abedi; Alireza Mardanshahi; Reza Zeanali
Journal:  Caspian J Intern Med       Date:  2021-04
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.