No abstract

Background Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone. Methods MEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Forty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%). Conclusions Our findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Recommendation for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening for women with a prior history of chest radiation is currently based on expert opinion, because existing data are very scant. The objective of this study was to evaluate added cancer yield of screening breast MRI in this population. METHODS: A retrospective review identified 98 women with a prior history of chest radiation therapy who had screening mammography and screening MRI performed at the authors' institution between January 2004 and July 2010. Medical records of these patients and results of 558 screening studies (296 mammograms and 262 MRI) were reviewed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and added cancer yield were calculated. RESULTS: Malignancy was diagnosed in 13 patients, invasive cancer was diagnosed in 10 patients, and ductal carcinomas in situ was diagnosed in 3 patients. The median latency from completion of radiation to detection of the breast cancer was 18 years (range, 8-37 years). Of the 13 cancers, 12 (92%) were detected by MRI, and 9 (69%) by mammography. For mammography, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 69%, 98%, 82%, and 95%, respectively; and, for MRI, these values were 92%, 94%, 71%, and 99%, respectively. In 4 of 98 patients, cancer was diagnosed on MRI only, resulting in an incremental cancer detection rate of 4.1% (95% confidence interval, 1.6%-10%). CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that MRI is a useful adjunct modality for screening high-risk women who have a prior history of chest radiation therapy, resulting in a 4.1% (4 of 98 women) added cancer detection rate. The authors concluded that both MRI and mammography should be used to screen women in this highrisk group. Cancer 2013;119:495-503. V C 2012 American Cancer Society.KEYWORDS: breast cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, screening, high risk, chest radiation. INTRODUCTIONAn estimated 50,000 to 55,000 women in the United States have received moderate to high-dose chest radiation for pediatric or young adult cancer, and these women are at clinically significant increased risk of breast cancer and breast cancer mortality after they achieve a cure of their primary cancer. 1 In this population, the cumulative incidence of breast cancer by ages 40 to 45 years ranges from 12% to 20%. 2,3 This incidence is similar to that reported among women who have a breast cancer susceptibility (BRCA) gene mutation, in whom, by age 40 years, the cumulative incidence ranges from 10% to 19% 4 and is significantly higher than in women at the same age in the general population, in whom the cumulative incidence of breast cancer is only 1%. 5,6 Like in the general population, breast cancer outcomes among childhood cancer survivors are strongly associated with disease stage at diagnosis. 7,8 Mammography allows for the early diagnosis of breast carcinoma, and mammographic screening effectively decreases breast cancer mortality in the general population. 9 Numer...

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature about the positive predictive value of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) categories 3, 4 and 5. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A research was performed in the online Medline database, entering the terms "predictive value" and "BI-RADS". Eleven studies were included in this review. RESULTS: The positive predictive values ranged respectively between 0% and 8%, 4% and 62%, and 54% and 100% for BI-RADS® categories 3, 4 and 5. Three studies have also evaluated morphological criteria with higher positive predictive value in mammography, mass with spiculated margins being the finding with highest positive predictive value for malignancy. CONCLUSION: A high variability was found in the reviewed literature among positive predictive values of BI-RADS® categories 3, 4 and 5, although methodological differences have been identified, limiting the comparative analysis. Keywords: Mammography; BI-RADS®; Breast cancer.Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System -BI-RADS®: valor preditivo positivo das categorias 3, 4 e 5. Revisão sistemática da literatura. OBJETIVO: Avaliar artigos, na literatura, que verificam o valor preditivo positivo das categorias 3, 4 e 5 do Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®). MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Foi realizada pesquisa na base de dados Medline utilizando os termos "predictive value" e "BI-RADS". Foram incluídos 11 artigos nesta revisão. RESULTADOS: O valor preditivo positivo das categorias 3, 4 e 5 variou entre 0% e 8%, 4% e 62%, 54% e 100%, respectivamente. Três artigos avaliaram, concomitantemente, os critérios morfológicos das lesões que apresentaram maior valor preditivo positivo na mamografia, sendo nódulo espiculado o critério com maior valor preditivo positivo. CONCLUSÃO: Houve grande variabilidade do valor preditivo positivo das categorias 3, 4 e 5 do BI-RADS® em todos os estudos, porém foram identificadas diferenças metodológicas que limitaram a comparação desses estudos. Unitermos: Mamografia; BI-RADS® ; Câncer de mama. AbstractResumo

No abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of the Radialis organ-targeted positron emission tomography (PET) Camera with standardized tests and through assessment of clinical-imaging results. Sensitivity, count-rate performance, and spatial resolution were evaluated according to the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU-4 standards, with necessary modifications to accommodate the planar detector design. The detectability of small objects was shown with micro hotspot phantom images. The clinical performance of the camera was also demonstrated through breast cancer images acquired with varying injected doses of 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) and qualitatively compared with sample digital full-field mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and whole-body (WB) PET images. Micro hotspot phantom sources were visualized down to 1.35 mm-diameter rods. Spatial resolution was calculated to be 2.3 ± 0.1 mm for the in-plane resolution and 6.8 ± 0.1 mm for the cross-plane resolution using maximum likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) reconstruction. The system peak noise equivalent count rate was 17.8 kcps at a 18F-FDG concentration of 10.5 kBq/mL. System scatter fraction was 24%. The overall efficiency at the peak noise equivalent count rate was 5400 cps/MBq. The maximum axial sensitivity achieved was 3.5%, with an average system sensitivity of 2.4%. Selected results from clinical trials demonstrate capability of imaging lesions at the chest wall and identifying false-negative X-ray findings and false-positive MRI findings, even at up to a 10-fold dose reduction in comparison with standard 18F-FDG doses (i.e., at 37 MBq or 1 mCi). The evaluation of the organ-targeted Radialis PET Camera indicates that it is a promising technology for high-image-quality, low-dose PET imaging. High-efficiency radiotracer detection also opens an opportunity to reduce administered doses of radiopharmaceuticals and, therefore, patient exposure to radiation.

No abstract