Health News:Breast Cancer

WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

Healthy Eating and Recipes
Sign up for a free weekly email with our most up-to-date information.

New Breast Cancer Test Outshines Mammograms, but Don’t Switch Yet


FRIDAY, Sept. 5 (Health.com) — Women with dense breasts who undergo a new type of breast cancer screening have fewer false alarms and a greater likelihood of tumor detection than they would with a mammogram, according to a study presented this week at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Washington, D.C.

However, the test—called molecular breast imaging or MBI—is unlikely to be an option at annual cancer screenings in the near future. Because the test involves exposure to radiation and needs additional study, it might be more useful to women who are candidates for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is generally reserved for those with a high risk of breast cancer.

MRIs don’t involve any radiation exposure, but mammograms, which are a type of X-ray, do involve a small amount of radiation. MBIs expose women to more radiation than a mammogram.

During an MBI, a radioactive tracer is injected into the body and “lights up” cancerous cells in the breast when viewed through a special camera.

“The 8- to 10-fold increase in radiation is a concern,” Debbie Saslow, PhD, director of breast and gynecologic cancer at the American Cancer Society, says of the new screening method. “The women most likely to have dense breasts are younger women, whose breasts are more susceptible to the harms of radiation.”

And Julia A. Smith, MD, PhD, a clinical assistant professor at New York University School of Medicine, asks, “What does this add? We [already] know that mammograms are of decreased efficacy in women who are high risk either because of genetics, family history, other breast disease, or breast density.”

She points out that these particular women are now being given MRIs, not mammograms, to interpret their hard-to-read tissue. “So it would be important to know how MBIs compare [to magnetic resonance imaging].”

The new findings suggest that MBIs might be less stressful than mammograms because of the lower likelihood of a false positive, a test result that seems suspicious but turns out to be nothing.

The researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., reported that mammograms led to false alarms in 9% of the patients involved in the study but in only 7% of the patients who had an MBI (the radioactive tracer occasionally binds to noncancerous tissue too).

Fewer false positives might mean cheaper medical bills because women could skip unnecessary biopsies and other tests to rule out cancer. MBIs, which cost less than $500, according to the Associated Press, are still more expensive than mammograms, though.

They do, however, cost less than MRIs, which can be more than $1,000. But without direct MBI-MRI comparisons on safety and sensitivity, it’s hard to tell how important monetary cost will be. (Results from one of the first studies putting MBI and MRI head-to-head were also presented this week in Washington.)

Then there’s the matter of MBIs and their radioactive tracers; some women are allergic to such agents. “It’s a small risk,” says Saslow, “but it’s something that makes it more complicated than a mammogram.”

For now, says Dr. Smith, mammograms, MRIs, and ultrasound are still your best bets for screening high-density breasts. “By no means should MBI be a standard of care right now,” she says. “No one should be experimenting. We don’t know what the down side is yet.”

By Sally Chew


More Breast Cancer Screening Information:



Comments (5)

The following content represents the opinions of Health.com users. It is not editorially reviewed for medical or factual accuracy. It does not constitute medical advice. See your doctor for medical advice.
  • Robin

    I am so happy that research is being done. There needs to better testing for women with dense breasts and mammograms are just not good enough, women need to demand that better tests become available, mammograms need to be a thing of the past and newer diagnotics tools need to become mainstream

  • Cara

    I have read a lot of literature lately about the downside and often ineffectiveness of traditional mammograms. I have read that yearly mammogram screenings can actually increase cancer risk. There are safer alternatives for women. Thermography is one. Anti-Malignin Antibody Screen blood test (AMAS) is another non invasive procedure.

  • Gayle

    It was reccommend that I have an MRI because of breast density and family background. I can’t because of the pacemaker in my chest. What is the next step??? Both my doctor and the radiology clinic where I have my mommograms refuse to answer me.

  • annette

    The only thing I NEVER see in these articles is any mention of INFLAMMATORY Breast Cancer, which cannot be detected with mammograms or ultrasound.

    My mother happened to notice one of the subtle signs and got checked to find out she had Breast Cancer. If she had opted for an additional lumpectomy or radiation instead of mastectomy, she would not be here today - in studying that tissue, they found she had IBC. Most people are not diagnoses until it’s too late.

    There needs to be a step up to MRI testing or some way to cellularly check for breast health. Although mammograms and ultrasounds save many lives, we’re missing more than we should with advances we now have. And most women are still not aware of IBC. Educate yourself and discuss with your doctor in case they, too, are not up to speed on it. Much rarer but much more deadly.

    Oh - and no, no history in the family and she is a very active healthy woman all her life.

  • Sally Chew

    Hi Annette: I would have to agree that folks don’t know enough about IBC, especially because it’s so hard to spot on your own. Health.com did an interesting article about it that you might want to check out:
    http://living.health.com/2008/06/01/fighting-the-cancer-a-mammo-cant-catch/
    Sally

Post a Comment

The rules: Keep it clean and stay on the subject or we may delete your comment.

Your email address is not published or shared. Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*)

*
*
 

We require all participants in interactive areas to accept the terms of the Time Inc. subscriber agreement. Please read the agreement before making comments. When you click on the button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to adhere to the terms of the subscriber agreement.

Advertisement
Close
Powered by ShareThis