Another study has found reduced recall rates, along with increased cancer detection, for patients who undergo 3D digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) rather than standard 2D mammography at screening.
Breast cancer treatments are improving and prognoses more positive overall, but, even at this advanced stage of the high-tech “war on cancer,” early diagnosis and staging are still of the essence.
An innovative, seven-minute MR scanning technique using no contrast has shown promise in ruling out malignancy—and thus averting unneeded biopsies—when deployed after regular screening mammography brings back troubling lesions.
Prospective trials comparing clinical outcomes of occasionally screened low-risk women with outcomes of low-risk women screened annually may overlook or misidentify breast cancers that exist but haven’t advanced, according to a new editorial.
A $2.5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute will be given to the University of Oklahoma (OU) and Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City to go toward the development of new short-term breast cancer risk prediction models.
Who doesn’t like getting things for free? It’s even better when the freebies are used to incentivize patients to quit smoking or eat healthy. But should those gift cards, event tickets and t-shirts be used to get women to come in for a mammogram?
Research has once again shown that false-positive screening mammography results lead to increased anxiety for the women that receive them, and that these feelings can last for months. But how much should we fear the fear itself?
Imaging software being developed at Rice University in Houston could offer fast, accurate diagnosis of breast cancer without the need for a specialist, according to a study published in Breast Cancer Research.
A study published last year in the Lancet showing the merits of treating breast cancer with intraoperative radiation therapy offered hope that the technique could be a safer alternative to traditional treatment. But not everybody is convinced.
Last week, a major study on the risks of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was published in JAMA Oncology. The results spurred the New York Times editorial section to run not one, but four different commentaries on the results.