3D mammograms increase breast cancer detection by 23 percent
[Via Slashgear]
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
[Via Slashgear]
Relevant Posts
- Toshiba reveals "pink" Portege M800 to help with breast cancer, probably won't sell any (40 days ago - 32 Comments)
- Sony intros VAIO CR / SR bundles in support of breast cancer research (59 days ago - 21 Comments)
- Prototype artificial heart unveiled, expected to cost $192k (21 days ago - 102 Comments)
- Carbon nanotubes could be used in film-like flat speakers (19 days ago - 31 Comments)
- Fingerprint 'developer' used to lift text from letter-containing envelopes (13 days ago - 19 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mam00th @ Jul 5th 2008 12:08PM
Mr Broli! How innapropriate!
The proper term is breast
broli @ Jul 5th 2008 12:10PM
I'm sorry Mr. Mam00th. But they made us vanish.
Blackstar @ Jul 5th 2008 2:03PM
Should we tell her she has an extra rib?
Hackius @ Jul 5th 2008 12:11PM
3D boobies
Paxer @ Jul 5th 2008 12:13PM
Hmm, what a great excuse to post pictures of boobs! Wank wank wank wank..... ahhh! Thanks Engadget! :)
DefPo3t @ Jul 5th 2008 12:20PM
and we all could of guesed that it would be Mr. Joshua Fruhlinger, who posted it : D.
jk joshua we love you :P
jef @ Jul 5th 2008 12:22PM
Grow up you moron!
GatgetMan @ Jul 5th 2008 1:39PM
You... get off.... looking... at x-ray pictures? That's.... wow....
DefPo3t @ Jul 5th 2008 2:16PM
Hey wat is wrong with a little x-ray fetish
barrywoods @ Jul 5th 2008 4:27PM
You must work for the TSA, and still live in your mom's basement.
Ace b @ Jul 5th 2008 5:12PM
Hey now,there's nothing wrong with living in your mum's basement.It's much cheaper to live that way.....just don't expect to impress any ladies by bringing them to your place.
Nex @ Jul 6th 2008 2:22AM
you do know that most women who get mammograms are over 40... but hey if saggyness (sp?) is what gets you off.. more power to you...
Moorio - XBL: peacebyanymeans @ Jul 5th 2008 12:15PM
Oh god...
DefPo3t @ Jul 5th 2008 12:16PM
Actually i think the correct term for what were looking at is a mammary
DefPo3t @ Jul 5th 2008 12:18PM
Breast cancer pics - are okay
testicular cancer pics - don't think about it
Paulmichael @ Jul 5th 2008 1:55PM
What, you were expecting a blog to be gender-neutral? Do you not KNOW who visits these things?
BigD145 @ Jul 5th 2008 7:37PM
I though women didn't exist on the internet. This seems to prove the opposite. At the very least, people on the internet have no balls.
Kimleng @ Jul 5th 2008 12:20PM
I think you meant to say "Mayo Clinic" instead of "Mayo clining" :)
Steven @ Jul 5th 2008 12:25PM
Isn't this what CT-scanners have been able to do since ages?
Fubar @ Jul 5th 2008 3:55PM
I suspect there's a lot less radiation exposure this way, which is important when you're looking at doing repeated screening.
But in a way, yes, this and CAT are both the reconstruction of a 3D image from views taken at multiple angles.
loosely_coupled @ Jul 5th 2008 6:21PM
Screw CT/CAT/X-ray, Wouldn't an MRI be 1000x times higher resolution for soft tissue, not too mention cancer patients probably don't need ANY amount of ionizing radiation!
Walt @ Jul 5th 2008 9:59PM
Mammography uses radiographs with special detectors that allow for a very high resolution (very much below 1mm). This is ideal for detecting the typical microcalcification patterns often seen in early breast cancers. The x-rays pass through only breast tissue.
In CT scanning, emitters and detectors pass around the whole body, and x-rays have to pass through ribs, spine, mediastinum, etc. So many xrays get blocked, resulting in reduction of signal to noise ratio. We can resolve about 1mm in size, but for faint microcalcifications, this is not ideal. Also, to improve signal to noise ratio, radiation dose must be increased, which is not ideal.
MRI is very useful in breast cancer cases, but is not as useful as standard mammography for screening. It actually has less spatial resolution than a mammogram. Its ability to discriminate soft tissue lesions is superb, as long as they are not tiny. MRI is helped by contrast medium, which can not be given to patients with renal insufficiency. Also, MRI exams of the breast typically require dynamic postcontrast imaging and results in datasets of about 1000 images. That is 996 images more than a standard bilateral mammogram. As a result, these exams take a long time for a highly subspecialized radiologist (minimum 5 years residency, typically an extra year mammography fellowship) to interpret, and the MRI machines themselves are very expensive - thus these exams are costly. You would think that computer interpretation could help, and it does in a very limited way with mammograms, but the sheer number of images and complexity of patterns on MRI thwarts reasonable software detection currently (also the high frequency of lawsuits around breast imaging limits excitement about designing interpretive software).
Sestamibi scanning, using a nuclear radioisotope that can be taken up in tumors, can also be a useful adjunct, as can ultrasound.
However, mammography has the combination of price, availablility, and sensitivity/specificity that is best suited for breast cancer screening of all of these modalities based on current technology.
Please note that every mammogram infintesimally increases the risk of developing breast cancer. However, it can be shown that your life is MUCH more likely to be saved by having a mammogram than to be taken by the radiation risks associated with mammography - in other words, mammography strongly benefits women. However, additional views such as those suggested here have to be weighed against the increased induced breast cancers.
One final note: mammography is nowhere near perfect. In fact, one study showed that 2 out of 3 breast cancers seen on mammography could be detected on the prior year's mammogram if the reader knew that the patient had been diagnosed with breast cancer the following year, but was not told where. So, improvements to breast cancer detection are always welcome.
Steven @ Jul 6th 2008 12:30AM
Thanks for clarifying, guys.
[Why was my question voted down? Look what you've done: now I end up among the 11 year old "BOOOOBS" and "boobies" yellers.]
Ghen @ Jul 6th 2008 7:48AM
Stop being smart, we're on the internet. You're going to make everyone stare at you funny.
John @ Jul 5th 2008 12:29PM
..and the juvenile comments commence...
pablot @ Jul 5th 2008 12:33PM
Actually, most big mammography players (Hologic, GE, Sectra, etc) have such systems in development already, I think both Hologic and GE showed theirs on RSNA.
DefPo3t @ Jul 5th 2008 12:30PM
oh i forgot fun bags is widely accepted term too
Sergio @ Jul 5th 2008 12:35PM
Come on guys this is serious. hehehe
Dillon @ Jul 5th 2008 12:36PM
Now won't you look at that. It was able to detect a yellow arrow stuck in that woman's breast!
Mile @ Jul 5th 2008 12:49PM
I hope this doesn't have a negative affect on my door to door breast exam service business.
Paulmichael @ Jul 5th 2008 1:56PM
See, now this is a good joke. All you other monkeys screaming "BOOOBS!" could learn a thing or two.
engadgetier @ Jul 6th 2008 2:21PM
Business has been slow for me lately, expect it to be the same for you.
Zzephyr @ Jul 5th 2008 12:57PM
Man, you know you are a true breastman when you spend more than two minutes looking at mammograms...
Kevin @ Jul 5th 2008 12:58PM
hmmmm, great idea! Send MORE mutating rays into the sensitive breast tissue. I'm not sure these idiots understand what x-rays do to DNA.
Zzephyr @ Jul 5th 2008 1:10PM
I concur, Dr. Kevin - we must instruct those fools at the Mayo to include Engadget blog research, stat!
Richard Glitter @ Jul 6th 2008 12:10PM
I'm sure the people given millions of dollars in grant money to research breast imaging have NO CLUE what breast imaging technologies are all about...
Read Walt's post just a bit further up the page for an EXCELLENT synopsis of the different breast imaging technologies, including a comment on the radiation exposure inherent in using x-ray based imaging technologies on living flesh.
Anton @ Jul 5th 2008 1:01PM
Wow, these comments are awful.
Seoultrain @ Jul 6th 2008 3:59AM
Nerds are smart, but turn into babbling idiots when it comes to female anatomy.
Sanchez @ Jul 5th 2008 1:04PM
My mum died of breast cancer so I'm glad technology is advancing to hopefully reduce deaths.
Sam @ Jul 5th 2008 1:22PM
So does this mean they no longer have to squish breasts into 2 dimensions to scan them?
Jenny @ Jul 5th 2008 8:11PM
Same question I have.
dappleganger @ Jul 5th 2008 1:53PM
As a two-time breast cancer survivor, this is great news!
As a regular Engadget reader, the comments are a good reminder of how immature geeks can be, but not unsurprising.
OK guys, back to your blowup dolls, heh.
broli @ Jul 5th 2008 2:01PM
Atleast they can't get breast cancer. Woooosh!
Jonathan-DBOSS @ Jul 5th 2008 3:41PM
BURN!
Jenny @ Jul 5th 2008 8:15PM
Actually, idiots, men can get breast cancer too. Look it up.
Jenny @ Jul 5th 2008 8:17PM
Oh, you mean the blow up dolls.
Watch out, if it's made in China it might cause testicular cancer. :-P
Osman @ Jul 5th 2008 1:55PM
So who else came into the comments section just to read the comments?
jonmacd @ Jul 5th 2008 2:15PM
guilty
DeoWulf @ Jul 5th 2008 2:22PM
Honestly I was a bit underwhelmed. I expected a lot more immaturity :P
epsilon343 @ Jul 5th 2008 2:30PM
Yup, same, and they were exactly what I expected.
Good to hear technology is advancing, hopefully it'll save more lives.