3D for mamm is not all its cracked up to be. Completely dependent on the tech, and there are a LOT of false positive tests resulting in needless biopsies and stress for those patients involved.
3D for mamm is not all its cracked up to be. Completely dependent on the tech, and there are a LOT of false positive tests resulting in needless biopsies and stress for those patients involved.
Not true...unless it's GE tomo... Read the GE studies on 3D- they're showing no improvement in recall rates and false positives compared to 2D digital mammography. Then compare to Hologic with over 100 published studies spanning over 1 million patients and huge improvements in sensitivity (cancer detection) and specificity (recall rate). Siemens is also showing studies with improved results over digital. So GE is the only one with a system equivalent to digital (digital came out in the early 2000's.)
GE is using a flawed design and cumbersome add-on device to go on a mammography platform that came out in 2008. Their own FDA filing shows the results are no better than digital mammography. They lose deal after deal to the other vendors, especially Hologic. No value proposition, bad workflow, and no clinical advantage over a 15 year old modality.
3D from any vendor other than GE is a way better screening tool than digital. Not as good as ultrasound but no one should expect X-ray to compete with ultrasound.
