4.4 Article

Novel imaging approaches to screen for breast cancer: Recent advances and future prospects

期刊

MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 27-37

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.09.001

关键词

Breast cancer; Screening; Imaging; Dense breast tissue

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R21 CA101705]
  2. Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim of the study: Over the past 50 years, the application of mammography - an X-ray of the breast to screen healthy women has been a successful strategy to reduce breast cancer mortality. The aim of this study was to review the literature on novel imaging approaches that have the potential to replace mammography. Methods: An online literature search was carried out using PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Google Patents. The search keywords included breast cancer, imaging and screening, with 51 journal articles and five United States patents being selected for review. Seventeen relevant online sources were also identified and referenced. Results: In addition to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), a further nine imaging modalities were identified for review. These included: digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT); breast computed tomography (BCT); automated breast ultrasound (ABUS); fusion of FFDM and ABUS; fusion of DBT and ABUS; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); optical imaging; radio-wave imaging; and tactile sensor imaging. Important parameters were considered: diagnostic success (sensitivity and specificity), especially in dense breasts; time to acquire the images; and capital cost of the equipment. Conclusions: DBT is rapidly replacing FFDM although it still misses invasive cancers in dense tissue. The fusion of ABUS, either with FFDM or DBT, will lead to sensitivity and specificity approaching 100%. The fusion of opto-acoustic imaging with ultrasound holds considerable promise for the future. (C) 2019 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据