Literature DB >> 33778669

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.

Matthew Brown1, Matthew F Covington1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To apply previously published benefit-to-risk ratio methods for mammography and molecular breast imaging (MBI) risk estimates to an expanded range of mammographic screening techniques, compressed breast thicknesses, and screening views. Materials and
Methods: Only previously published estimates were used; therefore, this study was exempt from the requirement to obtain institutional review board approval. Benefit-to-risk ratios were calculated as the ratio of breast cancer deaths averted and lives lost to screening over 10-year intervals starting at age 40 years for MBI, two-dimensional (2D) full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone, 2D FFDM with synthetic mammography, and 2D FFDM with tomosynthesis for two-, four-, and five-view screening mammography and compressed breast thicknesses of 20-29 mm, 50-59 mm, and 80-89 mm.
Results: Central estimates of the benefit-to-risk ratios ranged from 3 to 179 for screening mammography and from 5 to 9 for MBI. Benefit-to-risk ratios for MBI were inferior to those for mammography for most scenarios, but MBI may be performed at an equal or superior benefit-to-risk ratio for women aged 40-59 years with a compressed breast thickness of at least 80 mm and for those undergoing mammographic screening examinations with four or five views per breast. The benefit-to-risk ratios across all ages with use of tomosynthesis plus 2D FFDM as a screening examination were 45% lower than those for tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography.
Conclusion: Benefit-to-risk ratios for MBI are within the lower range of those for mammography when accounting for variation in mammography technique, compressed breast thickness, and age. Benefit-to-risk ratios of synthetic mammography plus tomosynthesis are superior to those of tomosynthesis plus 2D FFDM.Keywords: Breast, Mammography, Molecular Imaging, Molecular Imaging-Cancer, Radiation Safety, Radionuclide Studies, Screening, Tomosynthesis© RSNA, 2019See also the commentary by Hruska in this issue. 2019 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 33778669      PMCID: PMC7983792          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2019190005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer        ISSN: 2638-616X


  24 in total

Review 1.  Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies.

Authors:  R Edward Hendrick
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Molecular Breast Imaging and the 2016 Update to the ACR Appropriateness Criteria for Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Matthew F Covington; Deborah J Rhodes; Victor J Pizzitola
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 3.  Molecular Breast Imaging for Screening in Dense Breasts: State of the Art and Future Directions.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Jane Lange; Jeroen J van den Broek; Christoph I Lee; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Dominique Ritley; Karla Kerlikowske; Joshua J Fenton; Joy Melnikow; Harry J de Koning; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?

Authors:  Mohan Doss
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Phoebe E Freer; Joanna Riegert; Laura Eisenmenger; Dominik Ose; Nicole Winkler; Matthew A Stein; Gregory J Stoddard; Rachel Hess
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Tone Hovda; Åsne S Holen; Christoph I Lee; Judy Albertsen; Hilde Bjørndal; Siri H B Brandal; Randi Gullien; Jon Lømo; Daehoon Park; Linda Romundstad; Pål Suhrke; Einar Vigeland; Per Skaane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 11.105

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

Authors:  Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Katie N Jones; Alicia Y Toledano; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 9.  Alternative screening for women with dense breasts: breast-specific gamma imaging (molecular breast imaging).

Authors:  Anna Holbrook; Mary S Newel
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Benefit to Radiation Risk of Breast-specific Gamma Imaging Compared with Mammography in Screening Asymptomatic Women with Dense Breasts.

Authors:  R Edward Hendrick; Tara Tredennick
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.109

2.  Advances and Future Directions in Molecular Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Matthew F Covington; Ephraim E Parent; Elizabeth H Dibble; Gaiane M Rauch; Amy M Fowler
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 11.082

Review 3.  Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.959

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.