Literature DB >> 33778735

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

Ravi Jain1, Deanna R Katz1, Amber D Kapoor1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To calculate the negative predictive value (NPV) and false-negative rate (FNR) of molecular breast imaging (MBI) performed in patients who had low-suspicion index findings on mammograms and US images. Materials and
Methods: This retrospective study included patients who had undergone MBI between January 2015 and July 2017, who had index findings on screening mammograms and/or US images, and for whom either histopathologic results or a minimum of 1-year imaging follow-up results were available. A drawn dose of 8 mCi (296 MBq) of technetium 99m sestamibi was administered to all patients for MBI. The NPV and FNR of MBI was calculated for the cohort of 381 findings among 338 women (median age, 56 years; age range, 28-89 years) included in this study.
Results: Overall, 292 of the 381 (76.6%) MBI results were interpreted as negative. Of the 292, 27 patients underwent subsequent biopsies, results of which were negative for cancer; one patient underwent biopsy, and the result was positive for cancer; and 264 patients had true-negative findings based on follow-up imaging for a minimum of 1 year. Of the 89 MBI acquisitions interpreted as positive, there were 36 cancers. The NPV was calculated to be 99.7% (291 of 292, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 99.1%, 100%), and the FNR was 2.7% (one of 37, 95% CI: 0%, 7.9%). Interposing MBI reduced the number of biopsies by 67.5%.
Conclusion: The concept of the clinical utility of a negative MBI result may be valid but requires further testing.Keywords: Breast, Molecular Imaging-Cancer© RSNA, 2020. 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33778735      PMCID: PMC7983715          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2020190096

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


  26 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.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Bonnie N Joe; Karla Kerlikowske; Heather Greenwood; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Bethany Niell; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Jesus Avila; Leila Kazemi; John Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  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

6.  Utility of Breast MRI for Further Evaluation of Equivocal Findings on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Bethany L Niell; Kandarp Bhatt; Pragya Dang; Kathryn Humphrey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Dose Reduction in Molecular Breast Imaging With a New Image-Processing Algorithm.

Authors:  Ashley T Tao; Carrie B Hruska; Amy L Conners; Katie N Hunt; Tiffinee N Swanson; Thuy D Tran; Armando Manduca; Lucas Borges; Andrew D A Maidment; David Lake; Matthew P Johnson; Rickey E Carter; Deborah J Rhodes; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Honor J Passow
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 9.  MR Imaging for Diagnosis of Malignancy in Mammographic Microcalcifications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Barbara Bennani-Baiti; Pascal A Baltzer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  Rachel F Brem; Angelique C Floerke; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Christine Teal; Tricia Kelly; Vivek Mathur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.