Breast-specific gamma imaging for the detection of breast cancer in dense versus nondense breasts.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) for the detection of breast cancer in dense versus nondense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 341 women with biopsy-proven breast cancer diagnosed from January 2004 to August 2009 who underwent BSGI before surgical excision. Patients with predominantly fatty replaced (BI-RADS density 1) or scattered fibroglandular tissue (BI-RADS density 2) breasts were classified as nondense, and those with heterogeneously dense (BI-RADS density 3) or extremely dense tissue (BIRADS density 4) were classified as dense. BSGI examinations exhibiting focal increased radiotracer uptake in the area of biopsy-proven cancer were classified as positive according to BSGI reports in the medical record. The sensitivity of BSGI was calculated using Microsoft Excel 2003. Between-group differences were evaluated statistically using the Student t test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categoric variables, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of BSGI for breast cancer detection was 95.4%. Positive BSGI examinations were present in 136 of 142 nondense breast cancers and 195 of 205 dense breast cancers, for sensitivities of 95.8% and 95.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in BSGI breast cancer detection and parenchymal breast density (p = 0.459). CONCLUSION: BSGI has high sensitivities for the detection of breast cancer in women with dense and nondense breasts and is an effective adjunct imaging modality in women with both dense and nondense breasts.

Full-field digital mammographic interpretation with prior analog versus prior digitized analog mammography: time for interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to quantitatively compare the time for interpretation of screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images using prior analog film mammograms for comparison versus digitized prior analog mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images from 100 FFDM studies were interpreted by four radiologists. All FFDM images had comparison analog mammograms obtained a minimum of 1 year earlier that were digitized using a 43-µm film digitizer. Initially, the FFDM images were interpreted using the digitized prior mammogram on two, 5-megapixel monitors and PACS. All available PACS tools could be used. Four weeks later, the same 100 screening FFDMs were interpreted using the original analog mammograms on an alternator at 90° to the monitors used to interpret the screening FFDMs. The interpretation times were recorded and compared. The results were compared and evaluated for statistical significance using statistical software, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: For each radiologist, the mean reading time for FFDM with digitized priors was significantly shorter in length in comparison with the mean reading time calculated for interpreting FFDM using analog film priors. The differences in times recorded between digitized analog versus analog ranged from 11.31 to 74.18 seconds. The reading times for the four readers ranged from 17.32 to 185.94 seconds, with a mean of 58.56 seconds when using analog film prior mammograms. When using digitized analog prior mammograms, the reading times for the four readers ranged from 11.32 to 109.11 seconds with a mean of 39.76 seconds. The average difference in reading time was calculated to be 18.80 seconds, showing that there is a 32% increase in interpretation speed when using a digitized prior analog for comparison studies as opposed to an analog prior. CONCLUSION: There is a statistically significant 32.1% average improvement in interpretation time when FFDM screening mammograms use digitized analog comparison mammograms than if FFDM is interpreted with the original analog film mammograms. This should allow more FFDMs to be interpreted in the same amount of time if digitized prior analog mammograms are used.

Sofas and infant mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Sleeping on sofas increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome and other sleep-related deaths. We sought to describe factors associated with infant deaths on sofas. METHODS: We analyzed data for infant deaths on sofas from 24 states in 2004 to 2012 in the National Center for the Review and Prevention of Child Deaths Case Reporting System database. Demographic and environmental data for deaths on sofas were compared with data for sleep-related infant deaths in other locations, using bivariate and multivariable, multinomial logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1024 deaths on sofas made up 12.9% of sleep-related infant deaths. They were more likely than deaths in other locations to be classified as accidental suffocation or strangulation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-2.3) or ill-defined cause of death (aOR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5). Infants who died on sofas were less likely to be Hispanic (aOR 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) compared with non-Hispanic white infants or to have objects in the environment (aOR 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7) and more likely to be sharing the surface with another person (aOR 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9-3.0), to be found on the side (aOR 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4), to be found in a new sleep location (aOR 6.5; 95% CI, 5.2-8.2), and to have had prenatal smoke exposure (aOR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6). Data on recent parental alcohol and drug consumption were not available. CONCLUSIONS: The sofa is an extremely hazardous sleep surface for infants. Deaths on sofas are associated with surface sharing, being found on the side, changing sleep location, and experiencing prenatal tobacco exposure, which are all risk factors for sudden infant death syndrome and sleep-related deaths.

Nuclear medicine imaging of the breast: a novel, physiologic approach to breast cancer detection and diagnosis.

Nuclear medicine imaging of the breast is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved imaging modality that is being integrated into clinical practice to increase the armamentarium of tools available to diagnose breast cancer. The authors' practice, and others that have integrated nuclear medicine imaging of the breast into their clinical protocols, has found it to be a critical tool in optimally evaluating women for breast cancer. This physiologic/metabolic approach of nuclear medicine breast imaging studies, and their utility in clinical situations make them an important part of the entire spectrum of modalities for optimal breast cancer diagnosis.

Detection of occult foci of breast cancer using breast-specific gamma imaging in women with one mammographic or clinically suspicious breast lesion.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine how often breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) identifies occult cancerous lesions in women with one suspicious lesion detected on mammography or physical exam. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of the records of all patients who underwent BSGI between January 1, 2004, and June 4, 2007. Included in the study were 159 women who had one suspicious breast lesion on physical exam and/or mammography and who underwent BSGI to evaluate for occult lesions in the breast. All patients had one or more foci of cancer proven pathologically. BSGI findings were classified as normal or abnormal on the basis of the presence of focal radiotracer uptake. RESULTS: BSGI detected additional suspicious lesions occult to mammography and physical exam in 46 of 159 women (29%). BSGI identified occult cancer in 14 of 40 women (35%) who underwent biopsy or excision because of BSGI findings and in 14 of the 159 (9%) women in this study. In nine women, the occult cancer was present in the same breast as the index lesion (6%), and in five women, the occult cancer was found in the contralateral breast (3%). CONCLUSIONS: BSGI is an effective imaging modality in the identification of mammographically and clinically occult cancer in women with one suspicious breast lesion.