Literature DB >> 18723155

Scientific Impact Recognition Award: Molecular breast imaging: a review of the Mayo Clinic experience.

Carrie B Hruska1, Judy C Boughey, Stephen W Phillips, Deborah J Rhodes, Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler, Dana H Whaley, Amy C Degnim, Michael K O'Connor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Molecular breast imaging (MBI) depicts functional uptake of targeted radiotracers in the breast using dedicated gamma cameras.
METHODS: MBI studies were performed under several institutional protocols evaluating the use of MBI in screening and diagnosis.
RESULTS: By using a single-head system, sensitivity for breast cancer detection was 85% (57 of 67) overall and 29% for tumors 5 mm or less in diameter. Sensitivity improved to 91% (117 of 128) overall and 69% for tumors 5 mm or less using a dual-head system. In 650 high-risk patients undergoing breast cancer screening, MBI detected 7 cancers, 5 of which were missed on mammography. In 24 of 149 (16%) breast cancer patients MBI detected additional disease not seen on mammography. The sensitivity of MBI was 88% (83 of 94) for invasive ductal carcinoma, 79% (23 of 29) for invasive lobular carcinoma, and 89% (25 of 28) for ductal carcinoma in situ.
CONCLUSIONS: MBI can detect invasive ductal carcinoma, ductal carcinoma in situ, and invasive lobular carcinoma. It has a promising role in evaluating the extent of disease and multifocal disease in the breast for surgical treatment planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18723155      PMCID: PMC2603338          DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  21 in total

Review 1.  The role of nuclear medicine in breast cancer detection: functional breast imaging.

Authors:  I Khalkhali; H I Vargas
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Tumor clearance of technetium 99m-sestamibi as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  A Ciarmiello; S Del Vecchio; P Silvestro; M I Potena; M V Carriero; R Thomas; G Botti; G D'Aiuto; M Salvatore
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Evaluation of a small cadmium zinc telluride detector for scintimammography.

Authors:  Bryon Mueller; Michael K O'Connor; Ira Blevis; Deborah J Rhodes; Robin Smith; Douglas A Collins; Stephen W Phillips
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; S M Rubin; C Sandrock; V L Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  In vivo detection of multidrug-resistant (MDR1) phenotype by technetium-99m sestamibi scan in untreated breast cancer patients.

Authors:  S D Vecchio; A Ciarmiello; M I Potena; M V Carriero; C Mainolfi; G Botti; R Thomas; M Cerra; G D'Aiuto; T Tsuruo; M Salvatore
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1997-02

6.  Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; M F Yen; S W Duffy; R A Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density.

Authors:  Isabelle Leconte; Chantal Feger; Christine Galant; Martine Berlière; Bruno Vande Berg; William D'Hoore; Baudouin Maldague
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.

Authors:  Thomas M Kolb; Jacob Lichy; Jeffrey H Newhouse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  Dual-modality breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Mark B Williams; Patricia G Judy; Spencer Gunn; Stanislaw Majewski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Molecular breast imaging.

Authors:  Michael O'Connor; Deborah Rhodes; Carrie Hruska
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.512

Review 3.  Dedicated Breast Gamma Camera Imaging and Breast PET: Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2018-07

4.  Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence Analysis with Textural Metrics Extracted by Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Breast Lesions Classification.

Authors:  Roberta Fusco; Adele Piccirillo; Mario Sansone; Vincenza Granata; Maria Rosaria Rubulotta; Teresa Petrosino; Maria Luisa Barretta; Paolo Vallone; Raimondo Di Giacomo; Emanuela Esposito; Maurizio Di Bonito; Antonella Petrillo
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-30

Review 5.  Lobular breast cancer series: imaging.

Authors:  Karen Johnson; Deba Sarma; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 6.  Recent Advances in Zirconium-89 Chelator Development.

Authors:  Nikunj B Bhatt; Darpan N Pandya; Thaddeus J Wadas
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 4.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.