medpundit |
||
|
Wednesday, September 15, 2004For five years, the researchers studied 236 women between the ages of 25 and 65 who had either mutation. For women with the mutations who don't have a prophylactic mastectomy, the lifetime risk of breast cancer is up to 85 per cent. Dr. Ellen Warner, a medical oncologist at Sunnybrook and her colleagues compared four screening methods: 1. MRI. 2. Mammograms. 3. Ultrasound. 4. Semiannual clinical breast exams. Of the 22 cancers that were detected in the study, 17 were found by MRI (77 per cent), compared to eight through mammograms (36 per cent), seven by ultrasound (33 per cent) and two (9.1 per cent) from clinical breast exams. The study is here, at least in the abstract, but the CBC news story provides more details than the abstract. It shouldn't really be a surprise that MRI's can detect tumors earlier than other screening methods. They have a much better resolution and image quality. Compare this MRI with a mammogram and an ultrasound, and you'll see what I mean. Questions, however, remain. Does finding early breast cancer make any difference in terms of survival? How many false positives did MRI find, even in these high risk women? Only time, and more research, will tell. posted by Sydney on 9/15/2004 07:20:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|