Literature DB >> 25615744

Journal club: molecular breast imaging at reduced radiation dose for supplemental screening in mammographically dense breasts.

Deborah J Rhodes1, Carrie B Hruska, Amy Lynn Conners, Cindy L Tortorelli, Robert W Maxwell, Katie N Jones, Alicia Y Toledano, Michael K O'Connor.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of supplemental screening molecular breast imaging (MBI) in women with mammographically dense breasts after system modifications to permit radiation dose reduction. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. A total of 1651 asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breasts on prior mammography underwent screening mammography and adjunct MBI performed with 300-MBq (99m)Tc-sestamibi and a direct-conversion (cadmium zinc telluride) gamma camera, both interpreted independently. The cancer detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) were determined. RESULTS. In 1585 participants with a complete reference standard, 21 were diagnosed with cancer: two detected by mammography only, 14 by MBI only, three by both modalities, and two by neither. Of 14 participants with cancers detected only by MBI, 11 had invasive disease (median size, 0.9 cm; range, 0.5-4.1 cm). Nine of 11 (82%) were node negative, and two had bilateral cancers. With the addition of MBI to mammography, the overall cancer detection rate (per 1000 screened) increased from 3.2 to 12.0 (p < 0.001) (supplemental yield 8.8). The invasive cancer detection rate increased from 1.9 to 8.8 (p < 0.001) (supplemental yield 6.9), a relative increase of 363%, while the change in DCIS detection was not statistically significant (from 1.3 to 3.2, p =0.250). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 24%; specificity, 89%; and PPV3, 25%. For the combination, sensitivity was 91% (p < 0.001); specificity, 83% (p < 0.001); and PPV3, 28% (p = 0.70). The recall rate increased from 11.0% with mammography alone to 17.6% (p < 0.001) for the combination; the biopsy rate increased from 1.3% for mammography alone to 4.2% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. When added to screening mammography, MBI performed using a radiopharmaceutical activity acceptable for screening (effective dose 2.4 mSv) yielded a supplemental cancer detection rate of 8.8 per 1000 women with mammographically dense breasts.

Entities:  

Keywords:  99mTc-sestamibi; breast cancer; mammographic density; molecular breast imaging; supplemental screening

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25615744      PMCID: PMC4423604          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13357

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  32 in total

1.  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

2.  Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs.

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.486

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

Authors:  Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska; Stephen W Phillips; Dana H Whaley; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  To seek perfection or not? That is the question.

Authors:  Carl J D'Orsi; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Nehmat Houssami; Daniela Bernardi; Francesca Caumo; Marco Pellegrini; Silvia Brunelli; Paola Tuttobene; Paola Bricolo; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Stefania Montemezzi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 6.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The effect of tumor size and lymph node status on breast carcinoma lethality.

Authors:  James S Michaelson; Melvin Silverstein; Dennis Sgroi; Justin A Cheongsiatmoy; Alphonse Taghian; Simon Powell; Kevin Hughes; Arthur Comegno; Kenneth K Tanabe; Barbara Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.

Authors:  Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Ultrasound screening of breast cancer.

Authors:  Eriko Tohno; Ei Ueno; Hiroshi Watanabe
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 4.239

View more
  25 in total

1.  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

2.  Comparative Benefit-to-Radiation Risk Ratio of Molecular Breast Imaging, Two-Dimensional Full-Field Digital Mammography with and without Tomosynthesis, and Synthetic Mammography with Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Matthew Brown; Matthew F Covington
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2019-09-27

Review 3.  Applications of Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Arwa A Alzaghal; Pamela J DiPiro
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Molecular breast imaging: an emerging modality for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Breast Cancer Manag       Date:  2015-01-01

5.  The Impact of Breast Density Notification Laws on Supplemental Breast Imaging and Breast Biopsy.

Authors:  Loren Saulsberry; Lydia E Pace; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Effect of menstrual cycle phase on background parenchymal uptake at molecular breast imaging.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Celine M Vachon; Michael K O'Connor; Lynne T Shuster; Adam C Bartley; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-06-22       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  The Clinical Utility of a Negative Result at Molecular Breast Imaging: Initial Proof of Concept.

Authors:  Ravi Jain; Deanna R Katz; Amber D Kapoor
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-09-25

8.  Background parenchymal uptake during molecular breast imaging and associated clinical factors.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Deborah J Rhodes; Amy Lynn Conners; Katie N Jones; Rickey E Carter; Ravi K Lingineni; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 9.  Breast density implications and supplemental screening.

Authors:  Athina Vourtsis; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Molecular Breast Imaging using Synthetic Projections from High-Purity Germanium Detectors: A Simulation Study.

Authors:  Desmond Campbell; Todd Peterson
Journal:  IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci       Date:  2017-07-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.