From the November 2022 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine
MR starting in early 30s could cut breast cancer mortality by 50%
Getting an MR scan between the ages of 30 and 35 could spare women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer from a more than 50% chance of death from the disease.
Ad Statistics
Times Displayed: 46561
Times Visited: 1409 MIT labs, experts in Multi-Vendor component level repair of: MRI Coils, RF amplifiers, Gradient Amplifiers Contrast Media Injectors. System repairs, sub-assembly repairs, component level repairs, refurbish/calibrate. info@mitlabsusa.com/+1 (305) 470-8013
A team of researchers spread across the U.S. found in February that pathogenic variants in three genes — ATM, CHEK2 and PALB2 genes — are as prevalent as the more commonly known BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, and like them. Depending on the variant, women face a lifetime risk of developing breast cancer at 21% to 40%.
But screening these women has been challenging due to a lack of clinical trials to inform guidelines on when diagnostic exams should begin and how to screen. "The study supports the importance of testing appropriate women at a relatively young age so that they can benefit from MR screening. In general, we suggest testing women who meet NCCN criteria at around age 25-30," Dr. Mark Robson, senior author of the paper and chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told HCB News.
Robson and his colleagues evaluated risks and MR efficiency using established breast cancer simulation models. They input age-specific risk estimates provided by the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium from more than 32,000 patients and a similar number who had no cancer. They also included recent published data for screening performance.
The findings were published in JAMA Oncology.
Steven Ford
Possible problems with this study
March 08, 2023 12:47
The study was partially sponsored by the manufacturer of the ultra low field MRI and some of the physicians were investors in that company. This alone does not mean that the study is invalid.
The study you cite DOES NOT show that the low field MRI is nearly as effective as high field MRI in diagnosing stroke. Most importantly, the patients imaged in the ULF scanner had already been diagnosed with a stroke before imaging a second time with the low field machine. A more rigorous study would use a double-blind process.
Secondly, some of the patients were previously imaged using CT, not MRI. This is the very definition of an apples to oranges comparison.
The MRI scanner in question has limited resolution compared with virtually every MRI in the USA, even 20-year old scanners. It cannot image very small tumors or bleeds.
Finally, the study states that about 80% of the strokes were correctly identified. A more accurate headline would be 'ULF MRI leads to correct diagnosis 80% of the time' or 'ULF MRI Better Than Nothing'. More critically but more accurately, 'ULF MRI is a Poor Alternative if You Have Another Choice'.
A more meaningful study would compare low-cost CT scans to the use of this innovative and clever scanner, because they are more readily available and less costly.
This study has anecdotal value.
to rate and post a comment