3D mammograms increase breast cancer detection by 23 percent
By Joshua Fruhlinger 
posted Jul 5th 2008 11:57AM
posted Jul 5th 2008 11:57AM
[Via Slashgear]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Mr Broli! How innapropriate!
The proper term is breast
I'm sorry Mr. Mam00th. But they made us vanish.
Should we tell her she has an extra rib?
3D boobies
Hmm, what a great excuse to post pictures of boobs! Wank wank wank wank..... ahhh! Thanks Engadget! :)
and we all could of guesed that it would be Mr. Joshua Fruhlinger, who posted it : D.
jk joshua we love you :P
Grow up you moron!
You... get off.... looking... at x-ray pictures? That's.... wow....
Hey wat is wrong with a little x-ray fetish
You must work for the TSA, and still live in your mom's basement.
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.
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...
Oh god...
Actually i think the correct term for what were looking at is a mammary
Breast cancer pics - are okay
testicular cancer pics - don't think about it
What, you were expecting a blog to be gender-neutral? Do you not KNOW who visits these things?
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.
I think you meant to say "Mayo Clinic" instead of "Mayo clining" :)
Isn't this what CT-scanners have been able to do since ages?
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.
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!
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.
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.]
Stop being smart, we're on the internet. You're going to make everyone stare at you funny.
..and the juvenile comments commence...
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.
oh i forgot fun bags is widely accepted term too
Come on guys this is serious. hehehe
Now won't you look at that. It was able to detect a yellow arrow stuck in that woman's breast!
I hope this doesn't have a negative affect on my door to door breast exam service business.
See, now this is a good joke. All you other monkeys screaming "BOOOBS!" could learn a thing or two.
Business has been slow for me lately, expect it to be the same for you.
Man, you know you are a true breastman when you spend more than two minutes looking at mammograms...
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.
I concur, Dr. Kevin - we must instruct those fools at the Mayo to include Engadget blog research, stat!
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.
Wow, these comments are awful.
Nerds are smart, but turn into babbling idiots when it comes to female anatomy.
My mum died of breast cancer so I'm glad technology is advancing to hopefully reduce deaths.
So does this mean they no longer have to squish breasts into 2 dimensions to scan them?
Same question I have.
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.
Atleast they can't get breast cancer. Woooosh!
BURN!
Actually, idiots, men can get breast cancer too. Look it up.
Oh, you mean the blow up dolls.
Watch out, if it's made in China it might cause testicular cancer. :-P
So who else came into the comments section just to read the comments?
guilty
Honestly I was a bit underwhelmed. I expected a lot more immaturity :P
Yup, same, and they were exactly what I expected.
Good to hear technology is advancing, hopefully it'll save more lives.