Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the performance of a mammography with molecular imaging PET (MAMMI-PET) system for breast imaging in the hanging-breast position for the visualization of primary breast cancer lesions and to compare this method with whole-body PET/CT.
Subjects And Methods: Between March 2011 and March 2014, a prospective evaluation included women with one or more histologically confirmed primary breast cancer lesions (index lesions). After injection of 180-240 MBq of (18)F-FDG, whole-body PET/CT and MAMMI-PET acquisitions were performed, index lesions were scored 0, 1, or 2 for FDG uptake relative to background. Detection and FDG uptake were compared by breast length, maximal tumor diameter, affected breast quadrants, tumor grade, and histologic and immunologic sub-types. Finally, the two PET modalities were compared for detection of index lesions.
Results: For 234 index lesions (diameter, 5-170 mm), the overall sensitivity was 88.9% for MAMMI-PET and 91% for PET/CT (p = 0.61). Twenty-three (9.8%) index lesions located too close to the pectoral muscle were missed with MAMMI-PET, and 20 index lesions were missed with PET/CT. Lesion visibility on MAMMI-PET images was influenced by tumor grade (p = 0.034) but not by cancer subtype (p = 0.65).
Conclusion: Although in an overall evaluation MAMMI-PET was not superior to PET/CT, MAMMI-PET does have higher sensitivity for primary breast cancer lesions within the scanning range of the device. Optimization of the positioning device may increase visualization of the most dorsal lesions.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15371 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!