Literature DB >> 21045179

Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts.

Deborah J Rhodes1, Carrie B Hruska, Stephen W Phillips, Dana H Whaley, Michael K O'Connor.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare performance characteristics of dedicated dual-head gamma imaging and mammography in screening women with mammographically dense breasts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Asymptomatic women (n = 1007) who had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on prior mammograms and additional risk factors provided informed consent to enroll in an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant protocol. Participants underwent mammography and gamma imaging after a 740-mBq (20-mCi) technetium 99m sestamibi injection. Reference standard (more severe cancer diagnosis or 12-month follow-up findings) was available for 936 of 969 eligible participants. Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPVs) were determined for mammography, gamma imaging, and both combined.
RESULTS: Of 936 participants, 11 had cancer (one with mammography only, seven with gamma imaging only, two with both combined, and one with neither). Diagnostic yield was 3.2 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1, 9.3) for mammography, 9.6 per 1000 (95% CI: 5.1, 18.2) for gamma imaging, and 10.7 per 1000 (95% CI: 5.8, 19.6) for both (P = .016 vs mammography alone). One participant had a second ipsilateral cancer detected with gamma imaging only. Prevalent screening gamma imaging demonstrated equivalent specificity relative to incident screening mammography (93% [861 of 925] vs 91% [840 of 925], P = .069). Of eight cancers detected with gamma imaging only, six (75%) were invasive (median size, 1.1 cm; range, 0.4-5.1 cm); all were node negative. The ratio of the number of patients with breast cancer per number of screening examinations with abnormal findings was 3% (three of 88) for mammography and 12% (nine of 73) for gamma imaging (P = .01). The number of breast cancers diagnosed per number of biopsies performed was 18% (three of 17) for mammography and 28% (10 of 36) for gamma imaging (P = .36).
CONCLUSION: Addition of gamma imaging to mammography significantly increased detection of node-negative breast cancer in dense breasts by 7.5 per 1000 women screened (95% CI: 3.6, 15.4). To be clinically important, gamma imaging will need to show equivalent performance at decreased radiation doses. © RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21045179     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100625

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  30 in total

1.  The importance of standardized interpretation of molecular breast imaging with dedicated gamma cameras.

Authors:  Orazio Schillaci
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Amy Lynn Conners; Carrie B Hruska; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Deborah J Rhodes; Judy C Boughey; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Katie N Jones; Michael K O'Connor; James P Moriarty; Judy C Boughey; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast.

Authors:  Michael K O'Connor; Hua Li; Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska; Conor B Clancy; Richard J Vetter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  The abstract format of original articles: differences between imaging and non-imaging journals.

Authors:  Luca Maria Sconfienza; Giovanni Di Leo; Claudia Muzzupappa; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Implementation and evaluation of an expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm for gamma emission breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Zongyi Gong; Kelly Klanian; Tushita Patel; Olivia Sullivan; Mark B Williams
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy.

Authors:  Eun Kyoung Choi; Jooyeon Jamie Im; Chang Suk Park; Yong-An Chung; Kijun Kim; Jin Kyoung Oh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Adsorption of 99mTc-sestamibi onto plastic syringes: evaluation of factors affecting the degree of adsorption and their impact on clinical studies.

Authors:  Tiffinee N Swanson; Duong T Troung; Andrew Paulsen; Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  J Nucl Med Technol       Date:  2013-11-08

Review 10.  Clinical usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality to mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yu Sun; Wei Wei; Hua-Wei Yang; Jian-Lun Liu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.