Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportOncology-Clinical Diagnosis: Breast Cancer

Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast in a screening environment

Michael O'Connor, Hua Li, Deborah Rhodes, Carrie Hruska and Richard Vetter
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2010, 51 (supplement 2) 240;
Michael O'Connor
1Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hua Li
1Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deborah Rhodes
2Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carrie Hruska
1Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Vetter
3Radiation Safety, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

240

Objectives To estimate and compare the risks of radiation-induced cancer from mammography and molecular imaging techniques such as Positron Emission Mammography (PEM), Breast Specific Gamma Imaging (BSGI) and Molecular Breast Imaging (MBI).

Methods The EAR and LAR models from the BEIR VII report were used to calculate the cumulative cancer mortality (CM) based on a population of 100,000 females followed from birth to age 80. Assuming annual screening from age 40-80 with each technology, the cumulative LAR from mammography (mean glandular dose range 3 mGy - 8 mGy), PEM (10 mCi F-18 FDG), and BSGI / MBI (dose range 20 mCi - 30 mCi Tc-99m sestamibi) was calculated. Organ dose for F-18 FDG and Tc-99m sestamibi was obtained from ICRP 80 and MIRD 19 reports. The cumulative CM in U.S. from all cancers and from breast cancer were computed from the National Program of Cancer Registries. Corrections were made for survival to a given age.

Results Over a 40 year screening period, mammography was estimated to result in a CM of 32-85 in 100,000 women. The normal cumulative CM for breast cancer in this population was calculated at 2138 cases. Assuming a 20-30% reduction in mortality from breast screening with mammography, this yielded 513-769 lives saved and a benefit / risk ratio of ~10:1. F-18 FDG resulted in a CM of 423 cases, and Tc-99m sestamibi (20-30 mCi) resulted in a CM of 380-570 cases. Assuming similar reduction in mortality from screening with PEM, BSGI or MBI would yield benefit / risk ratio of ~1:1.

Conclusions Administered doses of F-18 FDG and Tc-99m sestamibi need to be reduced to 1-2 mCi and 2-4 mCi respectively in order that molecular imaging techniques such as PEM, BSGI and MBI achieve a comparable benefit / risk ratio to that of mammography in a screening environment.

Research Support This work was supported in part by funding from Mayo Foundation and from the National Cancer Institute, grant CA128407

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 51, Issue supplement 2
May 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast in a screening environment
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast in a screening environment
Michael O'Connor, Hua Li, Deborah Rhodes, Carrie Hruska, Richard Vetter
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2010, 51 (supplement 2) 240;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast in a screening environment
Michael O'Connor, Hua Li, Deborah Rhodes, Carrie Hruska, Richard Vetter
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2010, 51 (supplement 2) 240;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology-Clinical Diagnosis: Breast Cancer

  • A comparative study on the value of FDG PET/CT and sentinel node biopsy for axillary staging in primary breast cancer
  • PET/CT-MRI for staging of breast cancer patients: Preliminary experience
  • Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP whole body bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients
Show more Oncology-Clinical Diagnosis: Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer II

  • Impact of a Gaussian filter applied to post-reconstruction PET images on radiomic features to predict complete pathological response in breast cancer
  • The F18 FDG PET in breast carcinoma: Do patient characteristics, tumor histology or receptor status, have any impact on final staging?
  • Brown fat activation demonstrated on FDG PET/CT predicts survival outcome
Show more Breast Cancer II

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire