A dual-headed dedicated gamma camera used during molecular breast imaging (MBI) can accurately detect small breast tumors less than 2 cm in size, according to a study performed at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN.
One-hundred fifty patients who had suspicious lesions smaller than 2 cm in size were imaged using dual-head molecular breast imaging. “There were 128 cancers confirmed in 88 patients,” according to Carrie B. Hruska, MD, lead author of the study. “The sensitivity rate of dual-head MBI during the study was 90% (115/128)”, she said.
“Dual head MBI involves a very light, pain-free compression of the breast. Two views of each breast are performed, lasting for about 10 minutes per view,” said Hruska. “The patient receives an IV injection of a commonly used radiotracer and this tracer circulates throughout the body and is preferentially absorbed in the breast cancer,” she said.
MBI is about the same cost as digital mammography. Although mammography works very well for most women, there are many women who could benefit from an additional test like dual head MBI that is both cost-effective and also has a good specificity (meaning it won’t give a lot of false positive results). It would be useful for women who have very dense breasts on mammography or who are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer,” said Hruska. This study appears in the December issue of the American Journal of Roentgenology.
“MBI is still in the research stages, but it is expected to become more widely available in the future,” said Hruska.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "You, and Greenpeace, are doing just that. GMO is a legal definition, not a science one, and that..."
- "We lack new medicines because the patents expire too quickly and the regulatory burden is too high..."
- "The problem is, American agricultural science cannot be adopted world-wide for the simple reason..."
- "You're quote mining. When it comes to environmental risk, energy emissions from CO2 are back at..."
- "Of course they aren't. These are scientific terms Hank Campbell and you can't just interpret them..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- CHEST lung cancer experts present policy statement to CMS Committee on Coverage
- Clinical practice guidelines address multimodality treatment for esophageal cancer
- Molecular tumor markers could reveal new therapeutic targets for lung cancer treatment
- Breakdown in gut barriers to bacteria may promote inflammation and craving in alcoholics
- Sadness lasts longer than other emotions