4.2 Article

A comparative study of breast-specific gamma imaging with the conventional imaging modality in breast cancer patients with dense breasts

期刊

ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 823-829

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12149-012-0649-5

关键词

Breast cancer; Breast-specific gamma imaging; Mammography; Ultrasonography; Dense breasts; Tumor size

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2012R1A1A1012913]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A1A1012913] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) as compared with mammography (MMG) and ultrasonography (US). This study retrospectively enrolled 121 women with breast cancer (45.0 +/- A 8.1 years) and dense breasts (breast density > 50 %). All patients underwent preoperative BSGI, MMG, and US, and the results were correlated with the biopsy results. In the 121 patients, 153 breast lesions were malignant tumors and 75 lesions were diagnosed as benign tumors. The sensitivity and specificity of BSGI were 92.2 and 89.3 %, while the values of MMG and US were 53.6 and 94.7 and 91.5 and 53.3 %, respectively (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0004). In breast lesions a parts per thousand currency sign1 cm, the sensitivity and specificity of BSGI were 80.6 and 91.5 %, which were different from MMG and US, respectively (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0003). Of 28 patients with 59 multiplicities, BSGI and US found 49 lesions and 51 lesions correctly. However, MMG detected only 26 lesions as malignancies. Given the results of this study, women with dense breasts are not evaluated with MMG at all and went straight to US or MRI in order to minimize radiation exposure. Due to the high false-positive rate of these modalities, BSGI could then be utilized if the US or MRI are positive.

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

4.2
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