Friday, August 10, 2007

MRI, Not Mammography for Breast Cancer Detection

Filed under: Diagnostics

Researchers from the University of Bonn studied the effectiveness of mammograms to detect early stages of breast cancer, and compared that to MRI.

From the Guardian:

The study in the Lancet medical journal found that x-ray based mammograms detect only 56% of early lesions in high risk women compared with 92% when magnetic resonance imaging scans (MRI), more commonly used for brain scans, are used.

Nearly all breast cancers begin with non-invasive cancerous cells in the milk ducts, which if detected and quickly treated prevent the disease's progression.

Christiane Kuhl, the lead researcher at the University of Bonn said: "If you picked up all cases of ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] you would prevent virtually all cases of breast cancer. Our finding that MRI is superior to mammography in detecting it turns things upside down."

The study raises new questions about the national breast cancer screening programme which sees all women between the ages of 50 and 70 called in for regular mammograms but not MRI scans. Only younger women at high risk of breast cancer are offered the more expensive MRI scans which use giant magnets to produce images of soft tissue.

More at the Guardian...

Lancet podcast (.mp3 format) with Christiane Kuhl, lead author of the study...

email this article to a friend      print this!           comments and peer reviews (1)     






replies: 1 comments
Open comments are not moderated, although abusive and vulgar remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Medgadget.com. Please consult our disclaimer.

This story sounds great in the press releases but the ugly truth is that, like all tests, MRI mammograms are designed to be less specific in order to be more sensitive. Therefore, the number of false-positives goes way up.

In one study, they generated SIX TIMES MORE BIOPSIES in order to find more malignant tumours. The cost of these false positives in dollars, physical and psychological suffering has never been tallied. Certainly, the excess burden on a rationed health care system is not accounted (I write from Canada).

Is there a limit to how much are we willing to pay and suffer to avoid getting sick?


Posted by: EM
on August 13, 2007 09:26 AM GMT

add a comment
html tags: <b>, <i>, and <a>
examples: <b>Bold</b> <i>Italic</i>









Remember personal info?
(anonymous comments allowed)



click to make your selection boldclick to make your selection italicclick to add a link


Verification (needed to reduce spam):




Click the "Post" button only once!