- In a big research study of more than one million females, scientists compared how well 2D and 3D mammograms spot breast cancer.
- They discovered that 3D mammograms were substantially more efficient than 2D mammograms.
- The scans are presently going through medical trials.
Breast cancer is the most typical cancer amongst females in the United States, and the 2nd leading reason for cancer death in females after lung cancer.
According to the
- Localized — cancer has actually not spread out beyond the breast
- Regional — cancer has actually spread out outside the breast to close-by structures
- Distant — cancer has actually infected far-off parts and other organs of the body
The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer when discovered early in its localized phase is
Currently, the requirement of take care of screening is a two-dimensional (2D) digital mammography. Studies reveal that mammography can spot around
Research reveals that DBT is connected to a
Further research study of evaluating approaches for breast cancer might increase breast cancer survival rates.
Recently, scientists examined health care information from the U.S. to identify whether DBT or mammography yielded greater cancer detection rates.
Dr. Debbie Bennett, Associate Professor of Radiology at Washington University’s Siteman Cancer Center, not associated with the research study, informed Medical News Today:
“This study analyzed screening mammograms, which are done in women without symptoms for early detection of breast cancer. The study found that mammograms with tomosynthesis (3D mammograms) were better than standard digital mammograms at finding breast cancer and avoiding false positives.”
The research study was released in Radiology.
For the research study, the scientists examined health care information from 1,100,447 females aged 40 to 79 years of ages from throughout the U.S. All females were evaluated with either DBT or mammography in between 2014 and 2020.
In overall, 9,714 cancers were discovered: 3421 from mammography and 6293 from DBT.
Ultimately, the scientists discovered DBT had a cancer detection rate of 5.3 per 1000 assessments, whereas mammography had a cancer detection rate of 4.5 per 1000 assessments.
DBT likewise provided lower incorrect favorable and incorrect unfavorable outcomes than mammograms. These findings stayed after changing for prospective confounders.
Whereas more individuals went through biopsy after DBT, around 30% of biopsies from both DBT and mammograms returned favorable.
This research study likewise discovered that DBT works likewise for females with thick and non-dense breasts.
Dense breasts take place when breasts have more glandular and fibrous tissue than fatty breast tissue. This can make mammograms more difficult to check out and lower their precision. For this factor, the FDA now
To comprehend when mammography or DBT might be more effective, Dr. Jennifer Chen, lead breast imager at City of Hope Orange County Lennar Foundation Cancer Center in Irvine, California, not associated with the research study, informed MNT:
“DBT generates three-dimensional images of the breast, allowing physicians to see the breast from more angles and in greater detail. 3D imaging is especially recommended for women with dense breasts because traditional two-dimensional often cannot produce a clear image when high-density tissue is present.”
Dr. Bennett kept in mind that while DBT is usually more effective to basic mammography, the reverse might hold true in unusual scenarios, such as when females are not able to hold still for DBT.
MNT likewise spoke to Dr. Liane Philpotts, FACR, teacher of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging at Yale School of Medicine, Section Chief of the Breast Imaging Eastern Region at Smilow Cancer Hospital and co-author of Breast Tomosynthesis, not associated with the research study.
Dr. Philpotts said:
“For patients with predominantly fatty breasts (density A), 2D mammography will usually suffice. As soon as there is some fibro glandular breast density, DBT ’sees’ through the tissue better, resulting in more cancers detected and fewer [incorrect results]. Also, for women with dense breasts, having supplemental screening- via ultrasound or MRI, for example- has been shown that the advantages of DBT may not be as great.”
When inquired about the constraints of the findings, Dr. Chen informed MNT:
“A limitation of the study is that it is retrospective and observational. The researchers used data from women screened with 2D during an earlier period and compared it to those screened with 3D more recently, which means there is not an absolute comparison of the same cohort.”
“Additionally, because the 2D data lacked important patient characteristics, including breast density, race, and screening intervals, the population study group was not randomized, and there may have been selection bias. Also, the characteristics of detected cancers were not evaluated, and long-term outcomes for the 3D patients were not studied. Further research on the long-term benefits of 3D is important.” she included.
Dr. Philpotts informed MNT that while DBT is more effective for a lot of females, those with non-dense breasts might be much better served by 2D mammograms alone as these need a little less radiation.
Dr. Bennett included: “Although tomosynthesis mammograms seem preferable to standard mammography for most women, it is too early to say whether standard of care for breast cancer detection should change. A large trial is underway which randomly assigns women to either type of mammogram screening. Results from that trial should address the limitations described above and provide important information on whether the standard of care for breast cancer screening should change.”
MNT likewise spoke to Dr. Paul Friedman, Section Chief of Breast Imaging, Attending Radiologist, and Medical Director of the Rippel Breast Center, who was not associated with the research study. Dr. Friedman informed MNT:
“It’s important for patients to know their risk factors for breast cancer- especially family and genetic history. Many genetic cancers can present early and be aggressive. Patients should use calculation tools provided by breast centers or online to calculate their risks. However, they should also be aware that even if they don’t have elevated risk they are still at risk for breast cancer with the general population which is significant- 1 in 8 women.”
“I would also remind patients that breast cancer detection is becoming an individualized experience and each patient in conjunction with their personal physician and radiologist may benefit from adjunct screening tools- such as ultrasound screening and Breast MRI. Not every test is the best test for every patient and it’s important to have your care tailored to what works best for you and what helps the radiologist evaluate your breast tissue the best,” he concluded.
