ArticleMedical physics2015
Comparison of breast specific gamma imaging and molecular breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection: Evaluation in phantoms.
Article in Medical physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02556684 (A Prospective Study to Evaluate Dynamic Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging in Monitoring Tumor Responses in Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Prospective Study to Evaluate Dynamic Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging in Monitoring Tumor Responses in Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Mammography with deep learning for breast cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Current State of Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Theranostics.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Dedicated Breast Gamma Camera Imaging and Breast PET: Current Status and Future Directions.PET clinics · 2018Review
- Molecular Breast Imaging using Synthetic Projections from High-Purity Germanium Detectors: A Simulation Study.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2017Article
- Design and characterization of a low profile NaI(Tl) gamma camera for dedicated molecular breast tomosynthesis.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBreast specific gamma imaging or molecular breast imaging (BSGI) obtains 2D images of (99m)Tc sestamibi distribution in the breast. Molecular breast tomosynthesis (MBT) maps the tracer distribution in 3D by acquiring multiple projections over a limited angular range. Here, the authors compare the performance of the two technologies in terms of spatial resolution, lesion contrast, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in phantom studies under conditions of clinically relevant sestamibi dose and imaging time.
methodsThe systems tested were a Dilon 6800 and a MBT prototype developed at the University of Virginia. Both systems comprise a pixelated sodium iodide scintillator, an array of position sensitive photomultipliers, and a parallel hole collimator. The active areas and energy resolution of the systems are similar. System sensitivity, spatial resolution, lesion contrast, and CNR were measured using a Petri dish, a point source phantom, and a breast phantom containing simulated lesions at two depths, respectively. A single BSGI projection was acquired. Five MBT projections were acquired over ±20°. For both modalities, the total scan count density was comparable to that observed for each in typical 10 min human scans following injection of 22 mCi (814 MBq) of (99m)Tc-sestamibi. To assess the impact of reducing the tracer dose, the pixel counts of projection images were later binomially subsampled by a factor of 2 to give images corresponding to an injected activity of approximately 11 mCi (407 MBq). Both unprocessed (pixelated) BSGI projections and interpolated (smoothed) BSGI images displayed by default on the Dilon 6800 workstation were analyzed. Volumetric images were reconstructed from the MBT projections using a maximum likelihood expectation maximization algorithm and extracted slices were analyzed.
resultsOver a depth range of 1.5-7.5 cm, BSGI spatial resolution was 5.6-11.5 mm in unprocessed projections and 5.7-12.0 mm in interpolated images. Over the same range, the in-slice MBT spatial resolution was 6.7-9.4 mm. Lesion contrast was significantly improved with MBT relative to BSGI for five out of eight lesions imaged at either the 22 mCi or the 11 mCi dose level (p < 0.05). At both dose levels, significant improvements in CNR with MBT were also found for five out of eight lesions (9.8, 7.8, 6.2 mm lesions at water depth of 1.7 cm and 9.8, 7.8 mm lesions at water depth of 4.5 cm, p < 0.05). The 6.2 and 4.9 mm lesions located at 4.5 cm below the water surface were not visible in either modality at either activity level.
conclusionsUnder conditions of equal dose, imaging time and similar detectors, compared to BSGI, MBT provided higher lesion contrast, higher CNR, and spatial resolution that was less depth dependent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.