| Literature DB >> 20069109 |
Adam B Nover1, Shami Jagtap, Waqas Anjum, Hakki Yegingil, Wan Y Shih, Wei-Heng Shih, Ari D Brooks.
Abstract
Breast cancer is a serious threat worldwide and is the number two killer of women in the United States. The key to successful management is screening and early detection. What follows is a description of the state of the art in screening and detection for breast cancer as well as a discussion of new and emerging technologies. This paper aims to serve as a starting point for those who are not acquainted with this growing field.Entities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 20069109 PMCID: PMC2804038 DOI: 10.1155/2009/902326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biomed Imaging ISSN: 1687-4188
Comparative studies of detection techniques. CBE: clinical breast examination; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; US: ultrasonography.
| Study | Value | CBE | Mammography (%) | US (%) | MRI (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative evaluation [ | Detection rate | — | 84.6 | 97.3 | 93.7 |
| Sensitivity | — | 22.2 | 20.6 | 66.7 | |
| Specificity | — | 85.7 | 85.2 | 64.2 | |
| Accuracy of intraductal spread | — | 50.0 | 50.0 | 65.6 | |
|
| |||||
| Screening in women with familial or genetic predisposition [ | Sensitivity | 17.9 | 33.3 | — | 79.5 |
| Specificity | 98.1 | 95.0 | — | 89.8 | |
Results of PEM studies. NPV: negative predictive value; PEM: positron emission mammography; PPV: positive predictive value.
| Study | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | Number of lesions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berg et al. [ | 91 | 93 | 95 | 88 | 92 | 92 |
| Rosen et al. [ | 86 | 33 | 90 | 25 | — | 20 |
| Levine et al. [ | 86 | 91 | — | — | 89 | 18 |
*Low values due to small number of true negative cases.
Figure 1(a) Measured moduli; (b) the piezoelectric finger system. PZT: piezoelectric lead zirconate titanate.