An affordable imaging test can identify premature infants susceptible to necrotizing enterocolitis and alert physicians to begin treatment before infection leads to severe illness and emergency surgery.
Durham, NC (PRWEB) August 16, 2010
Researchers from Duke University have identified a non-invasive test that may prevent death in premature babies. Premature birth occurs in up to 10 percent of all pregnancies in the USA.
One of the most devastating conditions that can occur during this stressful period is necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), in which the intestines of the baby can become infected and die. This imaging test, published in the Journal of Surgical Radiology, may allow physicians to diagnose this condition earlier and start treatment before it threatens the lives of these preemies.
“Improved understanding of the relationships between skin temperature and perfusion may provide insight into the pathophysiology of NEC,” says Dr. Henry Rice, lead author of the study and chief of pediatric surgery at Duke University. The new imaging study, known as thermography, “is a non-invasive technique to measure skin temperature over the visible body simultaneously.”
This peer-reviewed study shows that thermography can monitor temperature changes in low birth weight infants. Premature infants susceptible to necrotizing enterocolitis have a decrease in overall abdominal skin temperature prior to becoming severely ill from infection. Premature infants monitored using this non-invasive test may be started on resuscitative therapy and antibiotics before the infection becomes life threatening and the intestines begin to die.
Thermography is an affordable technology that can be readily implemented in neonatal intensive care units. Future studies will further explore the role of this non-invasive imaging test and the utility it plays in early diagnosis and treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis.
This study was published in the Journal of Surgical Radiology, a peer-reviewed medical journal distributed to over 11,000 surgeons and radiologists around the world. Physicians and surgeons from major medical centers around the country serve on the journal’s Editorial Board.
Their expertise provides an authoritative validation of peer-reviewed scientific research that makes an important contribution to patient care. Learn more about this study and other medical advances at www.SurgRad.com.
Mammograms detect few breast cancers in women younger than age 40 and often lead to more tests and unwarranted anxiety because of false positives, according to a study published Monday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Reuters reports.
For the study, radiologist Bonnie Yankaskas of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and colleagues analyzed the medical records of 117,000 women ages 18 through 39 who received their first mammogram in 1995. After one year, no tumors were identified in women younger than age 25. In addition, 12.7 per 1,000 women ages 35 to 39 required additional tests after their mammograms detected a lesion, though very few had cancer, Reuters reports.
“In a theoretical population of 10,000 women aged 35 to 39 years, 1,266 women who are screened will receive further workup, with 16 cancers detected and 1,250 women receiving a false-positive result,” the study found. The study added that before a woman receives a mammogram, “[h]arms need to be considered, including radiation exposure because such exposure is more harmful in young women, the anxiety associated with false-positive findings on the initial examination, and costs associated with additional imaging.”
In an accompanying editorial, Ned Calonge of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment suggested that women younger than age 40 do not receive mammograms unless they detect a lump in their breast (Fox, Reuters, 5/3).
The age at which women should begin routine breast cancer screenings is a subject of debate among experts, the AP/Miami Herald reports (AP/Miami Herald, 5/3). In November 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued guidelines suggesting that most women should begin routine mammograms to screen for breast cancer at age 50, not age 40 as previously recommended. In setting the new guidelines, the experts weighed the benefits of early screening against the risks, including the chance that a mammogram could result in a false positive, prompting unnecessary treatments and stress (Women’s Health Policy Report, 11/17/2009).
In January, the American College of Radiology and the Society of Breast Imaging issued guidelines recommending that women with an average risk of breast cancer begin regular mammograms at age 40 and that women with an elevated risk begin screenings at age 30 (Women’s Health Policy Report, 1/5).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
****
Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Save time! Get the latest medical news headlines for your specialist area, in a weekly newsletter e-mail. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newsletters.php for details.
****
Source:
Caroline McNeil
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
URL: Article URL
04 May 2010
Screening mammograms in women under age 40 result in high rates of callbacks and additional imaging tests but low rates of cancer detection, according to a study published online May 3 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Many studies have assessed mammography in women over age 40 years, but little is known about its usefulness in younger women. Although screening mammograms are not generally recommended under age 40, about 29% of women between 30 and 40 report having had one.
To determine the accuracy and outcomes of mammograms in younger women, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Ph..D., from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues, pooled data from six mammography registries around the country. Their study included 117,738 women who had their first mammogram between the ages of 18 and 39. The researchers followed the women for a year to determine the accuracy of the tests and their cancer detection rates. They analyzed data for both screening mammograms and diagnostic mammograms, which were performed because a woman had a warning sign or symptom, such as a lump.
No cancers were detected in women 25. Among the 73,335 women aged 35-39, the researchers found that screening mammograms had poor accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value) and high rates of recall for additional tests. The cancer detection rate in this group was 1.6 cancers per 1,000 women.
For diagnostic mammograms, accuracy was better and the detection rate was 14.3 cancers per 1,000 women aged 35-39.
The authors conclude that in a theoretical population of 10,000 women having a screening mammogram between ages 35 and 39, 1,266 would be called back for further testing, 16 cancers would be detected, and therefore 1,250 women would have false positives.
In this population, they write, “our findings support a need for serious discussion about the appropriateness of mammography in women without the presence of symptoms.”
In an editorial, Ned Calonge, M.D., of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, notes that this “landmark descriptive study should inform women and physicians and guide research efforts” on early detection in younger women. He emphasizes that even women in the study with a family history of breast cancer had the same detection and false positive rates as women without a known family history. This calls into question he says, the recommendation of some health groups that women with a family history start screening early.
He concludes that “the study by Yankaskas et al. is a powerful reminder that we must continue to strive for better tests and better treatments…..Furthermore, we should not be satisfied with better detection rates alone. We need evidence that early detection of these cancers translates to improvements in important health outcomes.”
****
Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Save time! Get the latest medical news headlines for your specialist area, in a weekly newsletter e-mail. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newsletters.php for details.
****
Under pressure from doctors, some women’s groups and imaging equipment makers, lawmakers are likely to require coverage for more mammograms in health reform legislation than is currently recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Wall Street Journal reports.
According to the Journal, many doctors’ and patients’ groups in recent years have formed alliances — such as sponsorships, joint events and endorsements — with companies that make mammography equipment. The groups and their corporate partners “swung into action” in November 2009 after USPSTF issued new guidelines suggesting that routine mammograms were not necessary for women in their 40s who have normal cancer risk, the Journal reports. USPSTF said the risks associated with annual mammograms — such as false positives, unnecessary treatment and low-level radiation exposure — could outweigh the benefits for many women in their 40s. The panel recommended that women ages 50 through 74 receive mammograms biennially.
The new recommendations “sowed unease and confusion,” including among major medical societies that disagree with USPSTF, the Journal reports. Advocacy groups stepped up lobbying, and their supporters “swamped lawmakers with angry calls and e-mails” urging them to guarantee access to mammograms under health reform legislation, the Journal reports.
The House in December 2009 voted 426-0 for a nonbinding resolution — named for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a breast cancer survivor — saying that insurers should not use the USPSTF recommendations to deny coverage for routine mammograms. The Senate adopted a similar amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) to its health reform bill (HR 3590). Congressional aides say that a version of the amendment is likely to be in the final bill.
Meanwhile, a few women’s health groups that receive little or no corporate financing are standing behind the USPSTF guidelines. Fran Visco, founder of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, said, “The guidelines were always going to create a firestorm because they threaten some groups’ existence.” Adriane Fugh-Berman, a professor at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, said, “You have to ask if there’s a conflict of interest, because breast cancer advocacy has become big business.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last month sent letters to 33 major not-for-profit groups requesting that they disclose their industry funding. The American Cancer Society said that it had received less than $1 million from screening device makers over the past five years, a sum that its spokesperson said is small compared with its more than $1 billion in annual revenue. The money does not influence ACS’ recommendations, the spokesperson added. Nancy Brinker — co-founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which has received money through partnerships with GE — said the organization has always pushed for early detection (Mundy, Wall Street Journal, 1/12).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
FOX 10’s Laura Sambol introduces us to Digital Thermography, but we do want to let you know, that there are some medical images that may not be for everyone in the family.
E. Huff, as staff writer at NaturalNews.com, wrote an interesting article explaining the data behind the new mammogram recommendations.
Here’s a quote from the article:
“Several years ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF) issued an updated set of recommendations about mammogram screenings, suggesting which and how often women should get them. Since the last time the group issued its recommendations in 2002, new study data emerged that has led to a few changes. Its new guidelines, suggesting that women over 40 only need a mammogram every two years, has led to a firestorm of criticism from professional and advocacy groups as well as politicians.”
Mammograms & Thermography — Panel’s recommendation has merit.
The two techniques look at different things. Thermography looks at abnormal blood vessel formation, which is an early event in the life of a cancer. Mammography looks at masses (1 centimeter or larger) and calcification patterns, which are later developments.
Each has reliability in the recent literature of around 88 percent to 96 percent. Each misses tumors picked up by the other (perhaps as many as 10 percent). Mammography cannot visualize tiny tumors with new vessels, which show up on thermography. Conversely, tumors large enough to show up on mammography don’t always have thermographically abnormal vessels.
So, each technique is weak where the other is strong. The techniques are complementary. It is not a case of either one or the other.
One of the reasons for moving the starting age to 50 for mammograms was the vast number of negative breast biopsies for calcifications. I suspect, in my personal experience, I did 20 benign biopsies for calcification for every cancer we picked up. That is way too many, but abnormal calcifications are pretty common — and frequently benign.
Personally, I think the most prudent course for a woman to take is to get a baseline mammogram somewhere between the age of 40 and 50 (unless she has a high-risk family history, in which case earlier is better) to be reasonably sure larger lumps are not seen, and get a baseline thermography to look for early blood-vessel formation.
If both are negative, then follow with annual thermography looking for new vessel formation, with mammography every few years to look for solid lumps. Less frequent mammography means less radiation and mechanical pressure.
That regimen allows a woman to take advantage of the strengths of each technique without undue risks from radiation or unnecessary biopsy and, it seems to me, to maximize cost-benefit considerations.
— Robin A. Bernhoft, M.D., practices medical toxicology in Ojai.
The Mammography Debate, Part II
Written by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Cancer Decisions
“Barbara Brenner of the San Francisco-based group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA), is one of the rare leaders who has come out in support of the USPSTF recommendations. She says that the new recommendations would simply bring the US in line with most European countries, and hailed the USPSTF panel’s results. A BCA spokesperson told me that they have been deluged with comments from their members, not all of them supportive. (Note: I am a scientific advisor to Breast Cancer Action.) A lot of people are really upset by the loss of security that mammography provides.”
