Posts Tagged ‘imaging based screening’

Summary – Volume 4, Part 2: Translational Medicine in Cardiovascular Diseases

Summary – Volume 4, Part 2:  Translational Medicine in Cardiovascular Diseases

Author and Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP


We have covered a large amount of material that involves

  • the development,
  • application, and
  • validation of outcomes of medical and surgical procedures

that are based on translation of science from the laboratory to the bedside, improving the standards of medical practice at an accelerated pace in the last quarter century, and in the last decade.  Encouraging enabling developments have been:

1. The establishment of national and international outcomes databases for procedures by specialist medical societies

Stent Design and Thrombosis: Bifurcation Intervention, Drug Eluting Stents (DES) and Biodegrable Stents
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

On Devices and On Algorithms: Prediction of Arrhythmia after Cardiac Surgery and ECG Prediction of an Onset of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
Author, and Content Consultant to e-SERIES A: Cardiovascular Diseases: Justin Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC

Mitral Valve Repair: Who is a Patient Candidate for a Non-Ablative Fully Non-Invasive Procedure?
Author, and Content Consultant to e-SERIES A: Cardiovascular Diseases: Justin Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC and Article Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Cardiovascular Complications: Death from Reoperative Sternotomy after prior CABG, MVR, AVR, or Radiation; Complications of PCI; Sepsis from Cardiovascular Interventions
Author, Introduction and Summary: Justin D Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC and Article Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Survivals Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) /Coronary Angioplasty
Larry H. Bernstein, MD, Writer And Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Curator

Revascularization: PCI, Prior History of PCI vs CABG
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Outcomes in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients: Prasugrel (Effient) vs. Clopidogrel (Plavix); Aliskiren (Tekturna) added to ACE or added to ARB
Reporter and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Endovascular Lower-extremity Revascularization Effectiveness: Vascular Surgeons (VSs), Interventional Cardiologists (ICs) and Interventional Radiologists (IRs)
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

and more

2. The identification of problem areas, particularly in activation of the prothrombotic pathways, infection control to an extent, and targeting of pathways leading to progression or to arrythmogenic complications.

Cardiovascular Complications: Death from Reoperative Sternotomy after prior CABG, MVR, AVR, or Radiation; Complications of PCI; Sepsis from Cardiovascular Interventions Author, Introduction and Summary: Justin D Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC and Article Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Anticoagulation genotype guided dosing
Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Author and Curator

Stent Design and Thrombosis: Bifurcation Intervention, Drug Eluting Stents (DES) and Biodegrable Stents
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

The Effects of Aprotinin on Endothelial Cell Coagulant Biology
Co-Author (Kamran Baig, MBBS, James Jaggers, MD, Jeffrey H. Lawson, MD, PhD) and Curator

Outcomes in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients: Prasugrel (Effient) vs. Clopidogrel (Plavix); Aliskiren (Tekturna) added to ACE or added to ARB
Reporter and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Pharmacogenomics – A New Method for Druggability  Author and Curator: Demet Sag, PhD

Advanced Topics in Sepsis and the Cardiovascular System at its End Stage    Author: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

3. Development of procedures that use a safer materials in vascular management.

Stent Design and Thrombosis: Bifurcation Intervention, Drug Eluting Stents (DES) and Biodegrable Stents
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Biomaterials Technology: Models of Tissue Engineering for Reperfusion and Implantable Devices for Revascularization
Author and Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FACP and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Vascular Repair: Stents and Biologically Active Implants
Author and Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FACP and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, RN, PhD

Drug Eluting Stents: On MIT’s Edelman Lab’s Contributions to Vascular Biology and its Pioneering Research on DES
Author: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FACP and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

MedTech & Medical Devices for Cardiovascular Repair – Curations by Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

4. Discrimination of cases presenting for treatment based on qualifications for medical versus surgical intervention.

Treatment Options for Left Ventricular Failure – Temporary Circulatory Support: Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) – Impella Recover LD/LP 5.0 and 2.5, Pump Catheters (Non-surgical) vs Bridge Therapy: Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Devices (pLVADs) and LVADs (Surgical)
Author: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP And Curator: Justin D Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC

Coronary Reperfusion Therapies: CABG vs PCI – Mayo Clinic preprocedure Risk Score (MCRS) for Prediction of in-Hospital Mortality after CABG or PCI
Writer and Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

ACC/AHA Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Mitral Valve Repair: Who is a Patient Candidate for a Non-Ablative Fully Non-Invasive Procedure?
Author, and Content Consultant to e-SERIES A: Cardiovascular Diseases: Justin Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC and Article Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN 

5.  This has become possible because of the advances in our knowledge of key related pathogenetic mechanisms involving gene expression and cellular regulation of complex mechanisms.

What is the key method to harness Inflammation to close the doors for many complex diseases?
Author and Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

CVD Prevention and Evaluation of Cardiovascular Imaging Modalities: Coronary Calcium Score by CT Scan Screening to justify or not the Use of Statin
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Richard Lifton, MD, PhD of Yale University and Howard Hughes Medical Institute: Recipient of 2014 Breakthrough Prizes Awarded in Life Sciences for the Discovery of Genes and Biochemical Mechanisms that cause Hypertension
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Pathophysiological Effects of Diabetes on Ischemic-Cardiovascular Disease and on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
Curator:  Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Atherosclerosis Independence: Genetic Polymorphisms of Ion Channels Role in the Pathogenesis of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction and Myocardial Ischemia (Coronary Artery Disease (CAD))
Reviewer and Co-Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, CAP and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Notable Contributions to Regenerative Cardiology  Author and Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Article Commissioner: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RD

As noted in the introduction, any of the material can be found and reviewed by content, and the eTOC is identified in attached:


This completes what has been presented in Part 2, Vol 4 , and supporting references for the main points that are found in the Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence Cardiovascular book.  Part 1 was concerned with Posttranslational Modification of Proteins, vital for understanding cellular regulation and dysregulation.  Part 2 was concerned with Translational Medical Therapeutics, the efficacy of medical and surgical decisions based on bringing the knowledge gained from the laboratory, and from clinical trials into the realm opf best practice.  The time for this to occur in practice in the past has been through roughly a generation of physicians.  That was in part related to the busy workload of physicians, and inability to easily access specialty literature as the volume and complexity increased.  This had an effect of making access of a family to a primary care provider through a lifetime less likely than the period post WWII into the 1980s.

However, the growth of knowledge has accelerated in the specialties since the 1980’s so that the use of physician referral in time became a concern about the cost of medical care.  This is not the place for or a matter for discussion here.  It is also true that the scientific advances and improvements in available technology have had a great impact on medical outcomes.  The only unrelated issue is that of healthcare delivery, which is not up to the standard set by serial advances in therapeutics, accompanied by high cost due to development costs, marketing costs, and development of drug resistance.

I shall identify continuing developments in cardiovascular diagnostics, therapeutics, and bioengineering that is and has been emerging.

1. Mechanisms of disease

REPORT: Mapping the Cellular Response to Small Molecules Using Chemogenomic Fitness Signatures 

Science 11 April 2014:
Vol. 344 no. 6180 pp. 208-211

Abstract: Genome-wide characterization of the in vivo cellular response to perturbation is fundamental to understanding how cells survive stress. Identifying the proteins and pathways perturbed by small molecules affects biology and medicine by revealing the mechanisms of drug action. We used a yeast chemogenomics platform that quantifies the requirement for each gene for resistance to a compound in vivo to profile 3250 small molecules in a systematic and unbiased manner. We identified 317 compounds that specifically perturb the function of 121 genes and characterized the mechanism of specific compounds. Global analysis revealed that the cellular response to small molecules is limited and described by a network of 45 major chemogenomic signatures. Our results provide a resource for the discovery of functional interactions among genes, chemicals, and biological processes.


Laura Zahn
Sci. Signal. 15 April 2014; 7(321): ec103.

In order to identify how chemical compounds target genes and affect the physiology of the cell, tests of the perturbations that occur when treated with a range of pharmacological chemicals are required. By examining the haploinsufficiency profiling (HIP) and homozygous profiling (HOP) chemogenomic platforms, Lee et al.(p. 208) analyzed the response of yeast to thousands of different small molecules, with genetic, proteomic, and bioinformatic analyses. Over 300 compounds were identified that targeted 121 genes within 45 cellular response signature networks. These networks were used to extrapolate the likely effects of related chemicals, their impact upon genetic pathways, and to identify putative gene functions

Key Heart Failure Culprit Discovered

A team of cardiovascular researchers from the Cardiovascular Research Center at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, and University of California, San Diego have identified a small, but powerful, new player in thIe onset and progression of heart failure. Their findings, published in the journal Nature  on March 12, also show how they successfully blocked the newly discovered culprit.
Investigators identified a tiny piece of RNA called miR-25 that blocks a gene known as SERCA2a, which regulates the flow of calcium within heart muscle cells. Decreased SERCA2a activity is one of the main causes of poor contraction of the heart and enlargement of heart muscle cells leading to heart failure.

Using a functional screening system developed by researchers at Sanford-Burnham, the research team discovered miR-25 acts pathologically in patients suffering from heart failure, delaying proper calcium uptake in heart muscle cells. According to co-lead study authors Christine Wahlquist and Dr. Agustin Rojas Muñoz, developers of the approach and researchers in Mercola’s lab at Sanford-Burnham, they used high-throughput robotics to sift through the entire genome for microRNAs involved in heart muscle dysfunction.

Subsequently, the researchers at the Cardiovascular Research Center at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai found that injecting a small piece of RNA to inhibit the effects of miR-25 dramatically halted heart failure progression in mice. In addition, it also improved their cardiac function and survival.

“In this study, we have not only identified one of the key cellular processes leading to heart failure, but have also demonstrated the therapeutic potential of blocking this process,” says co-lead study author Dr. Dongtak Jeong, a post-doctoral fellow at the Cardiovascular Research Center at Icahn School of  Medicine at Mount Sinai in the laboratory of the study’s co-senior author Dr. Roger J. Hajjar.

Publication: Inhibition of miR-25 improves cardiac contractility in the failing heart.Christine Wahlquist, Dongtak Jeong, Agustin Rojas-Muñoz, Changwon Kho, Ahyoung Lee, Shinichi Mitsuyama, Alain Van Mil, Woo Jin Park, Joost P. G. Sluijter, Pieter A. F. Doevendans, Roger J. :  Hajjar & Mark Mercola.     Nature (March 2014)


“Junk” DNA Tied to Heart Failure

Deep RNA Sequencing Reveals Dynamic Regulation of Myocardial Noncoding RNAs in Failing Human Heart and Remodeling With Mechanical Circulatory Support

Yang KC, Yamada KA, Patel AY, Topkara VK, George I, et al.
Circulation 2014;  129(9):1009-21.    …/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003863.full

The myocardial transcriptome is dynamically regulated in advanced heart failure and after LVAD support. The expression profiles of lncRNAs, but not mRNAs or miRNAs, can discriminate failing hearts of different pathologies and are markedly altered in response to LVAD support. These results suggest an important role for lncRNAs in the pathogenesis of heart failure and in reverse remodeling observed with mechanical support.

Junk DNA was long thought to have no important role in heredity or disease because it doesn’t code for proteins. But emerging research in recent years has revealed that many of these sections of the genome produce noncoding RNA molecules that still have important functions in the body. They come in a variety of forms, some more widely studied than others. Of these, about 90% are called long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs), and exploration of their roles in health and disease is just beginning.

The Washington University group performed a comprehensive analysis of all RNA molecules expressed in the human heart. The researchers studied nonfailing hearts and failing hearts before and after patients received pump support from left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). The LVADs increased each heart’s pumping capacity while patients waited for heart transplants.

In their study, the researchers found that unlike other RNA molecules, expression patterns of long noncoding RNAs could distinguish between two major types of heart failure and between failing hearts before and after they received LVAD support.

“The myocardial transcriptome is dynamically regulated in advanced heart failure and after LVAD support. The expression profiles of lncRNAs, but not mRNAs or miRNAs, can discriminate failing hearts of different pathologies and are markedly altered in response to LVAD support,” wrote the researchers. “These results suggest an important role for lncRNAs in the pathogenesis of heart failure and in reverse remodeling observed with mechanical support.”

‘Junk’ Genome Regions Linked to Heart Failure

In a recent issue of the journal Circulation, Washington University investigators report results from the first comprehensive analysis of all RNA molecules expressed in the human heart. The researchers studied nonfailing hearts and failing hearts before and after patients received pump support from left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). The LVADs increased each heart’s pumping capacity while patients waited for heart transplants.

“We took an unbiased approach to investigating which types of RNA might be linked to heart failure,” said senior author Jeanne Nerbonne, the Alumni Endowed Professor of Molecular Biology and Pharmacology. “We were surprised to find that long noncoding RNAs stood out.

In the new study, the investigators found that unlike other RNA molecules, expression patterns of long noncoding RNAs could distinguish between two major types of heart failure and between failing hearts before and after they received LVAD support.

“We don’t know whether these changes in long noncoding RNAs are a cause or an effect of heart failure,” Nerbonne said. “But it seems likely they play some role in coordinating the regulation of multiple genes involved in heart function.”

Nerbonne pointed out that all types of RNA molecules they examined could make the obvious distinction: telling the difference between failing and nonfailing hearts. But only expression of the long noncoding RNAs was measurably different between heart failure associated with a heart attack (ischemic) and heart failure without the obvious trigger of blocked arteries (nonischemic). Similarly, only long noncoding RNAs significantly changed expression patterns after implantation of left ventricular assist devices.


Decoding the noncoding transcripts in human heart failure

Xiao XG, Touma M, Wang Y
Circulation. 2014; 129(9): 958960, 

Heart failure is a complex disease with a broad spectrum of pathological features. Despite significant advancement in clinical diagnosis through improved imaging modalities and hemodynamic approaches, reliable molecular signatures for better differential diagnosis and better monitoring of heart failure progression remain elusive. The few known clinical biomarkers for heart failure, such as plasma brain natriuretic peptide and troponin, have been shown to have limited use in defining the cause or prognosis of the disease.1,2 Consequently, current clinical identification and classification of heart failure remain descriptive, mostly based on functional and morphological parameters. Therefore, defining the pathogenic mechanisms for hypertrophic versus dilated or ischemic versus nonischemic cardiomyopathies in the failing heart remain a major challenge to both basic science and clinic researchers. In recent years, mechanical circulatory support using left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has assumed a growing role in the care of patients with end-stage heart failure.3 During the earlier years of LVAD application as a bridge to transplant, it became evident that some patients exhibit substantial recovery of ventricular function, structure, and electric properties.4 This led to the recognition that reverse remodeling is potentially an achievable therapeutic goal using LVADs. However, the underlying mechanism for the reverse remodeling in the LVAD-treated hearts is unclear, and its discovery would likely hold great promise to halt or even reverse the progression of heart failure.


Efficacy and Safety of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin in Relation to Baseline Renal Function in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy) Trial Analysis

Circulation. 2014; 129: 951-952​CIR.0000000000000022

In patients with atrial fibrillation, impaired renal function is associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic events and major bleeding. Oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists reduces thromboembolic events but raises the risk of bleeding. The new oral anticoagulant dabigatran has 80% renal elimination, and its efficacy and safety might, therefore, be related to renal function. In this prespecified analysis from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy (RELY) trial, outcomes with dabigatran versus warfarin were evaluated in relation to 4 estimates of renal function, that is, equations based on creatinine levels (Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI]) and cystatin C. The rates of stroke or systemic embolism were lower with dabigatran 150 mg and similar with 110 mg twice daily irrespective of renal function. Rates of major bleeding were lower with dabigatran 110 mg and similar with 150 mg twice daily across the entire range of renal function. However, when the CKD-EPI or MDRD equations were used, there was a significantly greater relative reduction in major bleeding with both doses of dabigatran than with warfarin in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥80 mL/min. These findings show that dabigatran can be used with the same efficacy and adequate safety in patients with a wide range of renal function and that a more accurate estimate of renal function might be useful for improved tailoring of anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation and an increased risk of stroke.

Aldosterone Regulates MicroRNAs in the Cortical Collecting Duct to Alter Sodium Transport.

Robert S Edinger, Claudia Coronnello, Andrew J Bodnar, William A Laframboise, Panayiotis V Benos, Jacqueline Ho, John P Johnson, Michael B Butterworth

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (Impact Factor: 8.99). 04/2014;     http://dx.

Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A role for microRNAs (miRs) in the physiologic regulation of sodium transport in the kidney has not been established. In this study, we investigated the potential of aldosterone to alter miR expression in mouse cortical collecting duct (mCCD) epithelial cells. Microarray studies demonstrated the regulation of miR expression by aldosterone in both cultured mCCD and isolated primary distal nephron principal cells.

Aldosterone regulation of the most significantly downregulated miRs, mmu-miR-335-3p, mmu-miR-290-5p, and mmu-miR-1983 was confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR. Reducing the expression of these miRs separately or in combination increased epithelial sodium channel (ENaC)-mediated sodium transport in mCCD cells, without mineralocorticoid supplementation. Artificially increasing the expression of these miRs by transfection with plasmid precursors or miR mimic constructs blunted aldosterone stimulation of ENaC transport.

Using a newly developed computational approach, termed ComiR, we predicted potential gene targets for the aldosterone-regulated miRs and confirmed ankyrin 3 (Ank3) as a novel aldosterone and miR-regulated protein.

A dual-luciferase assay demonstrated direct binding of the miRs with the Ank3-3′ untranslated region. Overexpression of Ank3 increased and depletion of Ank3 decreased ENaC-mediated sodium transport in mCCD cells. These findings implicate miRs as intermediaries in aldosterone signaling in principal cells of the distal kidney nephron.


2. Diagnostic Biomarker Status

A prospective study of the impact of serial troponin measurements on the diagnosis of myocardial infarction and hospital and 6-month mortality in patients admitted to ICU with non-cardiac diagnoses.

Marlies Ostermann, Jessica Lo, Michael Toolan, Emma Tuddenham, Barnaby Sanderson, Katie Lei, John Smith, Anna Griffiths, Ian Webb, James Coutts, John hambers, Paul Collinson, Janet Peacock, David Bennett, David Treacher

Critical care (London, England) (Impact Factor: 4.72). 04/2014; 18(2):R62.

Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Troponin T (cTnT) elevation is common in patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and associated with morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to determine the epidemiology of raised cTnT levels and contemporaneous electrocardiogram (ECG) changes suggesting myocardial infarction (MI) in ICU patients admitted for non-cardiac reasons.
cTnT and ECGs were recorded daily during week 1 and on alternate days during week 2 until discharge from ICU or death. ECGs were interpreted independently for the presence of ischaemic changes. Patients were classified into 4 groups: (i) definite MI (cTnT >=15 ng/L and contemporaneous changes of MI on ECG), (ii) possible MI (cTnT >=15 ng/L and contemporaneous ischaemic changes on ECG), (iii) troponin rise alone (cTnT >=15 ng/L), or (iv) normal. Medical notes were screened independently by two ICU clinicians for evidence that the clinical teams had considered a cardiac event.
Data from 144 patients were analysed [42% female; mean age 61.9 (SD 16.9)]. 121 patients (84%) had at least one cTnT level >=15 ng/L. A total of 20 patients (14%) had a definite MI, 27% had a possible MI, 43% had a cTNT rise without contemporaneous ECG changes, and 16% had no cTNT rise. ICU, hospital and 180 day mortality were significantly higher in patients with a definite or possible MI.Only 20% of definite MIs were recognised by the clinical team. There was no significant difference in mortality between recognised and non-recognised events.At time of cTNT rise, 100 patients (70%) were septic and 58% were on vasopressors. Patients who were septic when cTNT was elevated had an ICU mortality of 28% compared to 9% in patients without sepsis. ICU mortality of patients who were on vasopressors at time of cTNT elevation was 37% compared to 1.7% in patients not on vasopressors.
The majority of critically ill patients (84%) had a cTnT rise and 41% met criteria for a possible or definite MI of whom only 20% were recognised clinically. Mortality up to 180 days was higher in patients with a cTnT rise.


Prognostic performance of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T kinetic changes adjusted for elevated admission values and the GRACE score in an unselected emergency department population.

Moritz BienerMatthias MuellerMehrshad VafaieAllan S JaffeHugo A Katus,Evangelos Giannitsis

Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry (Impact Factor: 2.54). 04/2014;

Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To test the prognostic performance of rising and falling kinetic changes of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and the GRACE score.
Rising and falling hs-cTnT changes in an unselected emergency department population were compared.
635 patients with a hs-cTnT >99th percentile admission value were enrolled. Of these, 572 patients qualified for evaluation with rising patterns (n=254, 44.4%), falling patterns (n=224, 39.2%), or falling patterns following an initial rise (n=94, 16.4%). During 407days of follow-up, we observed 74 deaths, 17 recurrent AMI, and 79 subjects with a composite of death/AMI. Admission values >14ng/L were associated with a higher rate of adverse outcomes (OR, 95%CI:death:12.6, 1.8-92.1, p=0.01, death/AMI:6.7, 1.6-27.9, p=0.01). Neither rising nor falling changes increased the AUC of baseline values (AUC: rising 0.562 vs 0.561, p=ns, falling: 0.533 vs 0.575, p=ns). A GRACE score ≥140 points indicated a higher risk of death (OR, 95%CI: 3.14, 1.84-5.36), AMI (OR,95%CI: 1.56, 0.59-4.17), or death/AMI (OR, 95%CI: 2.49, 1.51-4.11). Hs-cTnT changes did not improve prognostic performance of a GRACE score ≥140 points (AUC, 95%CI: death: 0.635, 0.570-0.701 vs. 0.560, 0.470-0.649 p=ns, AMI: 0.555, 0.418-0.693 vs. 0.603, 0.424-0.782, p=ns, death/AMI: 0.610, 0.545-0.676 vs. 0.538, 0.454-0.622, p=ns). Coronary angiography was performed earlier in patients with rising than with falling kinetics (median, IQR [hours]:13.7, 5.5-28.0 vs. 20.8, 6.3-59.0, p=0.01).
Neither rising nor falling hs-cTnT changes improve prognostic performance of elevated hs-cTnT admission values or the GRACE score. However, rising values are more likely associated with the decision for earlier invasive strategy.


Troponin assays for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndrome: where do we stand?

Arie Eisenman

ABSTRACT: Under normal circumstances, most intracellular troponin is part of the muscle contractile apparatus, and only a small percentage (< 2-8%) is free in the cytoplasm. The presence of a cardiac-specific troponin in the circulation at levels above normal is good evidence of damage to cardiac muscle cells, such as myocardial infarction, myocarditis, trauma, unstable angina, cardiac surgery or other cardiac procedures. Troponins are released as complexes leading to various cut-off values depending on the assay used. This makes them very sensitive and specific indicators of cardiac injury. As with other cardiac markers, observation of a rise and fall in troponin levels in the appropriate time-frame increases the diagnostic specificity for acute myocardial infarction. They start to rise approximately 4-6 h after the onset of acute myocardial infarction and peak at approximately 24 h, as is the case with creatine kinase-MB. They remain elevated for 7-10 days giving a longer diagnostic window than creatine kinase. Although the diagnosis of various types of acute coronary syndrome remains a clinical-based diagnosis, the use of troponin levels contributes to their classification. This Editorial elaborates on the nature of troponin, its classification, clinical use and importance, as well as comparing it with other currently available cardiac markers.

Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 07/2006; 4(4):509-14. 


Impact of redefining acute myocardial infarction on incidence, management and reimbursement rate of acute coronary syndromes.

Carísi A Polanczyk, Samir Schneid, Betina V Imhof, Mariana Furtado, Carolina Pithan, Luis E Rohde, Jorge P Ribeiro

ABSTRACT: Although redefinition for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been proposed few years ago, to date it has not been universally adopted by many institutions. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic, prognostic and economical impact of the new diagnostic criteria for AMI. Patients consecutively admitted to the emergency department with suspected acute coronary syndromes were enrolled in this study. Troponin T (cTnT) was measured in samples collected for routine CK-MB analyses and results were not available to physicians. Patients without AMI by traditional criteria and cTnT > or = 0.035 ng/mL were coded as redefined AMI. Clinical outcomes were hospital death, major cardiac events and revascularization procedures. In-hospital management and reimbursement rates were also analyzed. Among 363 patients, 59 (16%) patients had AMI by conventional criteria, whereas additional 75 (21%) had redefined AMI, an increase of 127% in the incidence. Patients with redefined AMI were significantly older, more frequently male, with atypical chest pain and more risk factors. In multivariate analysis, redefined AMI was associated with 3.1 fold higher hospital death (95% CI: 0.6-14) and a 5.6 fold more cardiac events (95% CI: 2.1-15) compared to those without AMI. From hospital perspective, based on DRGs payment system, adoption of AMI redefinition would increase 12% the reimbursement rate [3552 Int dollars per 100 patients evaluated]. The redefined criteria result in a substantial increase in AMI cases, and allow identification of high-risk patients. Efforts should be made to reinforce the adoption of AMI redefinition, which may result in more qualified and efficient management of ACS.

International Journal of Cardiology 03/2006; 107(2):180-7. · 5.51 Impact Factor


3. Biomedical Engineerin3g

Safety and Efficacy of an Injectable Extracellular Matrix Hydrogel for Treating Myocardial Infarction 

Sonya B. Seif-Naraghi, Jennifer M. Singelyn, Michael A. Salvatore,  et al.
Sci Transl Med 20 February 2013 5:173ra25

Acellular biomaterials can stimulate the local environment to repair tissues without the regulatory and scientific challenges of cell-based therapies. A greater understanding of the mechanisms of such endogenous tissue repair is furthering the design and application of these biomaterials. We discuss recent progress in acellular materials for tissue repair, using cartilage and cardiac tissues as examples of application with substantial intrinsic hurdles, but where human translation is now occurring.

 Acellular Biomaterials: An Evolving Alternative to Cell-Based Therapies

J. A. Burdick, R. L. Mauck, J. H. Gorman, R. C. Gorman,
Sci. Transl. Med. 2013; 5, (176): 176 ps4

Acellular biomaterials can stimulate the local environment to repair tissues without the regulatory and scientific challenges of cell-based therapies. A greater understanding of the mechanisms of such endogenous tissue repair is furthering the design and application of these biomaterials. We discuss recent progress in acellular materials for tissue repair, using cartilage and cardiac tissues as examples of applications with substantial intrinsic hurdles, but where human translation is now occurring.

Instructive Nanofiber Scaffolds with VEGF Create a Microenvironment for Arteriogenesis and Cardiac Repair

Yi-Dong Lin, Chwan-Yau Luo, Yu-Ning Hu, Ming-Long Yeh, Ying-Chang Hsueh, Min-Yao Chang, et al.
Sci Transl Med 8 August 2012; 4(146):ra109. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003841

Angiogenic therapy is a promising approach for tissue repair and regeneration. However, recent clinical trials with protein delivery or gene therapy to promote angiogenesis have failed to provide therapeutic effects. A key factor for achieving effective revascularization is the durability of the microvasculature and the formation of new arterial vessels. Accordingly, we carried out experiments to test whether intramyocardial injection of self-assembling peptide nanofibers (NFs) combined with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) could create an intramyocardial microenvironment with prolonged VEGF release to improve post-infarct neovascularization in rats. Our data showed that when injected with NF, VEGF delivery was sustained within the myocardium for up to 14 days, and the side effects of systemic edema and proteinuria were significantly reduced to the same level as that of control. NF/VEGF injection significantly improved angiogenesis, arteriogenesis, and cardiac performance 28 days after myocardial infarction. NF/VEGF injection not only allowed controlled local delivery but also transformed the injected site into a favorable microenvironment that recruited endogenous myofibroblasts and helped achieve effective revascularization. The engineered vascular niche further attracted a new population of cardiomyocyte-like cells to home to the injected sites, suggesting cardiomyocyte regeneration. Follow-up studies in pigs also revealed healing benefits consistent with observations in rats. In summary, this study demonstrates a new strategy for cardiovascular repair with potential for future clinical translation.

Manufacturing Challenges in Regenerative Medicine

I. Martin, P. J. Simmons, D. F. Williams.
Sci. Transl. Med. 2014; 6(232): fs16.

Along with scientific and regulatory issues, the translation of cell and tissue therapies in the routine clinical practice needs to address standardization and cost-effectiveness through the definition of suitable manufacturing paradigms.





Read Full Post »

Follow-up on Tomosynthesis

Writer & Curator: Dror Nir, PhD

Tomosynthesis, is a method for performing high-resolution limited-angle (i.e. not full 3600 rotation but more like ~500) tomography. The use of such systems in breast-cancer screening is steadily increasing following the clearance of such system by the FDA on 2011; see my posts – Improving Mammography-based imaging for better treatment planning and State of the art in oncologic imaging of breast.

Many radiologists expects that Tomosynthesis will eventually replace conventional mammography due to the fact that it increases the sensitivity of breast cancer detection. This claim is supported by new peer-reviewed publications. In addition, the patient’s experience during Tomosynthesis is less painful due to a lesser pressure that is applied to the breast and while presented with higher in-plane resolution and less imaging artifacts the mean glandular dose of digital breast Tomosynthesis is comparable to that of full field digital mammography. Because it is relatively new, Tomosynthesis is not available at every hospital. As well, the procedure is recognized for reimbursement by public-health schemes.

A good summary of radiologist opinion on Tomosynthesis can be found in the following video:

Recent studies’ results with digital Tomosynthesis are promising. In addition to increase in sensitivity for detection of small cancer lesions researchers claim that this new breast imaging technique will make breast cancers easier to see in dense breast tissue.  Here is a paper published on-line by the Lancet just a couple of months ago:

Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study

Stefano Ciatto†, Nehmat Houssami, Daniela Bernardi, Francesca Caumo, Marco Pellegrini, Silvia Brunelli, Paola Tuttobene, Paola Bricolo, Carmine Fantò, Marvi Valentini, Stefania Montemezzi, Petra Macaskill , Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jun;14(7):583-9. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7. Epub 2013 Apr 25.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis with 3D images might overcome some of the limitations of conventional 2D mammography for detection of breast cancer. We investigated the effect of integrated 2D and 3D mammography in population breast-cancer screening.

Methods Screening with Tomosynthesis OR standard Mammography (STORM) was a prospective comparative study. We recruited asymptomatic women aged 48 years or older who attended population-based breast-cancer screening through the Trento and Verona screening services (Italy) from August, 2011, to June, 2012. We did screen-reading in two sequential phases—2D only and integrated 2D and 3D mammography—yielding paired data for each screen. Standard double-reading by breast radiologists determined whether to recall the participant based on positive mammography at either screen read. Outcomes were measured from final assessment or excision histology. Primary outcome measures were the number of detected cancers, the number of detected cancers per 1000 screens, the number and proportion of false positive recalls, and incremental cancer detection attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography. We compared paired binary data with McNemar’s test.

Findings 7292 women were screened (median age 58 years [IQR 54–63]). We detected 59 breast cancers (including 52 invasive cancers) in 57 women. Both 2D and integrated 2D and 3D screening detected 39 cancers. We detected 20 cancers with integrated 2D and 3D only versus none with 2D screening only (p<0.0001). Cancer detection rates were 5·3 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI 3.8–7.3) for 2D only, and 8.1 cancers per 1000 screens (6.2–10.4) for integrated 2D and 3D screening. The incremental cancer detection rate attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography was 2.7 cancers per 1000 screens (1.7–4.2). 395 screens (5.5%; 95% CI 5.0–6.0) resulted in false positive recalls: 181 at both screen reads, and 141 with 2D only versus 73 with integrated 2D and 3D screening (p<0·0001). We estimated that conditional recall (positive integrated 2D and 3D mammography as a condition to recall) could have reduced false positive recalls by 17.2% (95% CI 13.6–21.3) without missing any of the cancers detected in the study population.

Interpretation Integrated 2D and 3D mammography improves breast-cancer detection and has the potential to reduce false positive recalls. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare integrated 2D and 3D mammography with 2D mammography for breast cancer screening.

Funding National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Hologic, USA; Technologic, Italy.


Although controversial, mammography screening is the only population-level early detection strategy that has been shown to reduce breast-cancer mortality in randomised trials.1,2 Irrespective of which side of the mammography screening debate one supports,1–3 efforts should be made to investigate methods that enhance the quality of (and hence potential benefit from) mam­mography screening. A limitation of standard 2D mammography is the superimposition of breast tissue or parenchymal density, which can obscure cancers or make normal structures appear suspicious. This short coming reduces the sensitivity of mammography and increases false-positive screening. Digital breast tomosynthesis with 3D images might help to overcome these limitations. Several reviews4,5 have described the development of breast tomosynthesis technology, in which several low-dose radiographs are used to reconstruct a pseudo-3D image of the breast.4–6

Initial clinical studies of 3D mammography, 6–10 though based on small or selected series, suggest that addition of 3D to 2D mammography could improve cancer detection and reduce the number of false positives. However, previous assessments of breast tomosynthesis might have been constrained by selection biases that distorted the potential effect of 3D mammography; thus, screening trials of integrated 2D and 3D mammography are needed.6

We report the results of a large prospective study (Screening with Tomosynthesis OR standard Mammog­raphy [STORM]) of 3D digital mammography. We investi­gated the effect of screen-reading using both standard 2D and 3D imaging with tomosynthesis compared with screening with standard 2D digital mammography only for population breast-cancer screening.



Study design and participants

STORM is a prospective population-screening study that compares mammography screen-reading in two sequential phases (figure)—2D only versus integrated 2D and 3D mammography with tomosynthesis—yielding paired results for each screening examination. Women aged 48 years or older who attended population-based screening through the Trento and Verona screening services, Italy, from August, 2011, to June, 2012, were invited to be screened with integrated 2D and 3D mammography. Participants in routine screening mammography (once every 2 years) were asymptomatic women at standard (population) risk for breast cancer. The study was granted institutional ethics approval at each centre, and participants gave written informed consent. Women who opted not to participate in the study received standard 2D mammography. Digital mammography has been used in the Trento breast-screening programme since 2005, and in the Verona programme since 2007; each service monitors outcomes and quality indicators as dictated by European standards, and both have published data for screening performance.11,12


study design


All participants had digital mammography using a Selenia Dimensions Unit with integrated 2D and 3D mammography done in the COMBO mode (Hologic, Bedford, MA, USA): this setting takes 2D and 3D images at the same screening examination with a single breast position and compression. Each 2D and 3D image consisted of a bilateral two-view (mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal) mammogram. Screening mammo­grams were interpreted sequentially by radiologists, first on the basis of standard 2D mammography alone, and then by the same radiologist (on the same day) on the basis of integrated 2D and 3D mammography (figure). Thus, integrated 2D and 3D mammography screening refers to non-independent screen reading based on joint interpretation of 2D and 3D images, and does not refer to analytical combinations. Radiologists had to record whether or not to recall the participant at each screen-reading phase before progressing to the next phase of the sequence. For each screen, data were also collected for breast density (at the 2D screen-read), and the side and quadrant for any recalled abnormality (at each screen-read). All eight radiologists were breast radiologists with a mean of 8 years (range 3–13 years) experience in mammography screening, and had received basic training in integrated 2D and 3D mammography. Several of the radiologists had also used 2D and 3D mammography for patients recalled after positive conventional mammography screening as part of previous studies of tomosynthesis.8,13

Mammograms were interpreted in two independent screen-reads done in parallel, as practiced in most population breast-screening programs in Europe. A screen was considered positive and the woman recalled for further investigations if either screen-reader recorded a positive result at either 2D or integrated 2D and 3D screening (figure). When previous screening mammograms were available, these were shown to the radiologist at the time of screen-reading, as is standard practice. For assessment of breast density, we used Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)14 classification, with participants allocated to one of two groups (1–2 [low density] or 3–4 [high density]). Disagreement between readers about breast density was resolved by assessment by a third reader.

Our primary outcomes were the number of cancers detected, the number of cancers detected per 1000 screens, the number and percentage of false posi­tive recalls, and the incremental cancer detection rate attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography screening. We compared the number of cancers that were detected only at 2D mammography screen-reading and those that were detected only at 2D and 3D mammography screen-reading; we also did this analysis for false positive recalls. To explore the potential effect of integrated 2D and 3D screening on false-positive recalls, we also estimated how many false-positive recalls would have resulted from using a hypothetical conditional false-positive recall approach; – i.e. positive integrated 2D and 3D mammography as a condition of recall (screening recalled at 2D mammography only would not be recalled). Pre-planned secondary analyses were comparison of outcome measures by age group and breast density.

Outcomes were assessed by excision histology for participants who had surgery, or the complete assessment outcome (including investigative imaging with or without histology from core needle biopsy) for all recalled participants. Because our study focuses on the difference in detection by the two screening methods, some cancers might have been missed by both 2D and integrated 2D and 3D mammography; this possibility could be assessed at future follow-up to identify interval cancers. However, this outcome is not assessed in the present study and does not affect estimates of our primary outcomes – i.e. comparative true or false positive detection for 2D-only versus integrated 2D and 3D mammography.


Statistical analysis

The sample size was chosen to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 20% in cancer detection, assuming a detection probability of 80% for integrated 2D and 3D screening mammography and 60% for 2D only screening, with a two-sided significance threshold of 5%. Based on the method of Lachenbruch15 for estimating sample size for studies that use McNemar’s test for paired binary data, a minimum of 40 cancers were needed. Because most screens in the participating centres were incident (repeat) screening (75%–80%), we used an underlying breast-cancer prevalence of 0·5% to estimate that roughly 7500–8000 screens would be needed to identify 40 cancers in the study population.

We calculated the Wilson CI for the false-positive recall ratio for integrated 2D and 3D screening with conditional recall compared with 2D only screening.16 All of the other analyses were done with SAS/STAT (version 9.2), using exact methods to compute 95 CIs and p-values.

Role of the funding source

The sponsors of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author (NH) had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.


7292 participants with a median age of 58 years (IQR 54–63, range 48–71) were screened between Aug 12, 2011, and June 29, 2012. Roughly 5% of invited women declined integrated 2D and 3D screening and received standard 2D mammography. We present data for 7294 screens because two participants had bilateral cancer (detected with different screen-reading techniques for one participant). We detected 59 breast cancers in 57 participants (52 invasive cancers and seven ductal carcinoma in-situ). Of the invasive cancers, most were invasive ductal (n=37); others were invasive special types (n=7), invasive lobular (n=4), and mixed invasive types (n=4).

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the cancers. Mean tumour size (for the invasive cancers with known exact size) was 13.7 mm (SD 5.8) for cancers detected with both 2D alone and integrated 2D and 3D screening (n=29), and 13.5 mm (SD 6.7) for cancers detected only with integrated 2D and 3D screening (n=13).


Table 1

Of the 59 cancers, 39 were detected at both 2D and integrated 2D and 3D screening (table 2). 20 cancers were detected with only integrated 2D and 3D screening compared with none detected with only 2D screening (p<0.0001; table 2). 395 screens were false positive (5.5%, 95% CI 5.0–6.0); 181 occurred at both screen-readings, and 141 occurred at 2D screening only compared with 73 at integrated 2D and 3D screening (p<0.0001; table 2). These differences were still significant in sensitivity analyses that excluded the two participants with bilateral cancer (data not shown).

Table 2

5.3 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI 3.8–7.3; table 3) were detected with 2D mammography only versus 8.1 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI 6.2–10.4) with integrated 2D and 3D mammography (p<0.0001). The incremental cancer detection rate attributable to inte­grated 2D and 3D screening was 2.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI 1.7–4.2), which is 33.9% (95% CI 22.1–47.4) of the cancers detected in the study popu­lation. In a sensitivity analysis that excluded the two participants with bilateral cancer the estimated incre­mental cancer detection rate attributable to integrated 2D and 3D screening was 2.6 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI 1.4–3.8). The stratified results show that integrated 2D and 3D mammography was associated with an incrementally increased cancer detection rate in both age-groups and density categories (tables 3–5). A minority (16.7%) of breasts were of high density (category 3–4) reducing the power of statistical comparisons in this subgroup (table 5). The incremental cancer detection rate was much the same in low density versus high density groups (2.8 per 1000 vs 2.5 per 1000; p=0.84; table 3).

Table 3

Table 4-5

Overall recall—any recall resulting in true or false positive screens—was 6.2% (95% CI 5.7–6.8), and the false-positive rate for the 7235 screens of participants who did not have breast cancer was 5.5% (5.0–6.0). Table 6 shows the contribution to false-positive recalls from 2D mammography only, integrated 2D and 3D mammography only, and both, and the estimated number of false positives if positive integrated 2D and 3D mammography was a condition for recall (positive 2D only not recalled). Overall, more of the false-positive rate was driven by 2D mammography only than by integrated 2D and 3D, although almost half of the false-positive rate was a result of false positives recalled at both screen-reading phases (table 6). The findings were much the same when stratified by age and breast density (table 6). Had a conditional recall rule been applied, we estimate that the false-positive rate would have been 3.5% (95% CI 3.1–4.0%; table 6) and could have potentially prevented 68 of the 395 false positives (a reduction of 17.2%; 95% CI 13.6–21.3). The ratio between the number of false positives with integrated 2D and 3D screening with conditional recall (n=254) versus 2D only screening (n=322) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.71–0.87).


Our study showed that integrated 2D and 3D mam­mography screening significantly increases detection of breast cancer compared with conventional mammog­raphy screening. There was consistent evidence of an incremental improvement in detection from integrated 2D and 3D mammography across age-group and breast density strata, although the analysis by breast density was limited by low number of women with breasts of high density.

One should note that we investigated comparative cancer detection, and not absolute screening sensitivity. By integrating 2D and 3D mammography using the study screen-reading protocol, 1% of false-positive recalls resulted from 2D and 3D screen-reading only (table 6). However, significantly more false positives resulted from 2D only mammography compared with integrated 2D and 3D mammography, both overall and in the stratified analyses. Application of a conditional recall rule would have resulted in a false-positive rate of 3.5% instead of the actual false-positive rate of 5.5%. The estimated false positive recall ratio of 0.79 for integrated 2D and 3D screening with conditional recall compared with 2D only screening suggests that integrated 2D and 3D screening could reduce false recalls by roughly a fifth. Had such a condition been adopted, none of the cancers detected in the study would have been missed because no cancers were detected by 2D mammography only, although this result might be because our design allowed an independent read for 2D only mammography whereas the integrated 2D and 3D read was an interpretation of a combination of 2D and 3D imaging. We do not recommend that such a conditional recall rule be used in breast-cancer screening until our findings are replicated in other mammography screening studies—STORM involved double-reading by experienced breast radiologists, and our results might not apply to other screening settings. Using a test set of 130 mammograms, Wallis and colleagues7 report that adding tomosynthesis to 2D mammography increased the accuracy of inexperienced readers (but not of experienced readers), therefore having experienced radiologists in STORM could have underestimated the effect of integrated 2D and 3D screen-reading.

No other population screening trials of integrated 2D and 3D mammography have reported final results (panel); however, an interim analysis of the Oslo trial17 a large population screening study has shown that integrated 2D and 3D mammography substantially increases detection of breast cancer. The Oslo study investigators screened women with both 2D and 3D mammography, but randomised reading strategies (with vs without 3D mammograms) and adjusted for the different screen-readers,17whereas we used sequential screen-reading to keep the same reader for each exam­ination. Our estimates for comparative cancer detection and for cancer detection rates are consistent with those of the interim analysis of the Oslo study.17 The applied recall methods differed between the Oslo study (which used an arbitration meeting to decide recall) and the STORM study (we recalled based on a decision by either screen-reader), yet both studies show that 3D mammog­raphy reduces false-positive recalls when added to standard mammography.

An editorial in The Lancet18 might indeed signal the closing of a chapter of debate about the benefits and harms of screening. We hope that our work might be the beginning of a new chapter for mammography screening: our findings should encourage new assessments of screening using 2D and 3D mammography and should factor several issues related to our study. First, we compared standard 2D mammography with integrated 2D and 3D mammography the 3D mammograms were not interpreted independently of the 2D mammograms therefore 3D mammography only (without the 2D images) might not provide the same results. Our experience with breast tomosynthesis and a review6 of 3D mammography underscore the importance of 2D images in integrated 2D and 3D screen-reading. The 2D images form the basis of the radiologist’s ability to integrate the information from 3D images with that from 2D images. Second, although most screening in STORM was incident screening, the substantial increase in cancer detection rate with integrated 2D and 3D mammography results from the enhanced sensitivity of integrated 2D and 3D screening and is probably also a result of a prevalence effect (ie, the effect of a first screening round with integrated 2D and 3D mammography). We did not assess the effect of repeat (incident) screening with integrated 2D and 3D mammography on cancer detection it might provide a smaller effect on cancer detection rates than what we report. Third, STORM was not designed to measure biological differences between the cancers detected at integrated 2D and 3D screening compared with those detected at both screen-reading phases. Descriptive analyses suggest that, generally, breast cancers detected only at integrated 2D and 3D screening had similar features (eg, histology, pathological tumour size, node status) as those detected at both screen-reading phases. Thus, some of the cancers detected only at 2D and 3D screening might represent early detection (and would be expected to receive screening benefit) whereas some might represent over-detection and a harm from screening, as for conventional screening mam mography.1,19 The absence of consensus about over-diagnosis in breast-cancer screening should not detract from the importance of our study findings to applied screening research and to screening practice; however, our trial was not done to assess the extent to which integrated 2D and 3D mam­mography might contribute to over-diagnosis.

The average dose of glandular radiation from the many low-dose projections taken during a single acquisition of 3D mammography is roughly the same as that from 2D mammography.6,20–22 Using integrated 2D and 3D en­tails both a 2D and 3D acquisition in one breast com­pression, which roughly doubles the radiation dose to the breast. Therefore, integrated 2D and 3D mammography for population screening might only be justifiable if improved outcomes were not defined solely in terms of improved detection. For example, it would be valuable to show that the increased detection with integrated 2D and 3D screening leads to reduced interval cancer rates at follow-up. A limitation of our study might be that data for interval cancers were not available; however, because of the paired design we used, future evaluation of interval cancer rates from our study will only apply to breast cancers that were not identified using 2D only or integrated 2D and 3D screening. We know of two patients from our study who have developed interval cancers (follow-up range 8–16 months). We did not get this information from cancer registries and follow-up was very short, so these data should be interpreted very cautiously, especially because interval cancers would be expected to occur in the second year of the standard 2 year interval between screening rounds. Studies of interval cancer rates after integrated 2D and 3D mammography would need to be randomised controlled trials and have a very large sample size. Additionally, the development of reconstructed 2D images from a 3D mammogram23 provides a timely solution to concerns about radiation by providing both the 2D and 3D images from tomosynthesis, eliminating the need for two acquisitions.

We have shown that integrated 2D and 3D mammog­raphy in population breast-cancer screening increases detection of breast cancer and can reduce false-positive recalls depending on the recall strategy. Our results do not warrant an immediate change to breast-screening practice, instead, they show the urgent need for random­ised controlled trials of integrated 2D and 3D versus 2D mammography, and for further translational research in breast tomosynthesis. We envisage that future screening trials investigating this issue will include measures of breast cancer detection, and will be designed to assess interval cancer rates as a surrogate endpoint for screening efficacy.


SC had the idea for and designed the study, and collected and interpreted data. NH advised on study concepts and methods, analysed and interpreted data, searched the published work, and wrote and revised the report. DB and FC were lead radiologists, recruited participants, collected data, and commented on the draft report. MP, SB, PT, PB, PT, CF, and MV did the screen-reading, collected data, and reviewed the draft report. SM collected data and reviewed the draft report. PM planned the statistical analysis, analysed and interpreted data, and wrote and revised the report.

Conflicts of interest

SC, DB, FC, MP, SB, PT, PB, CF, MV, and SM received assistance from Hologic (Hologic USA; Technologic Italy) in the form of tomosynthesis technology and technical support for the duration of the study, and travel support to attend collaborators’ meetings. NH receives research support from a National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF Australia) Practitioner Fellowship, and has received travel support from Hologic to attend a collaborators’ meeting. PM receives research support through Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council programme grant 633003 to the Screening & Test Evaluation Program.



1       Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012; 380: 1778–86.

2       Glasziou P, Houssami N. The evidence base for breast cancer screening. Prev Med 2011; 53: 100–102.

3       Autier P, Esserman LJ, Flowers CI, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening: the questions answered. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012; 9: 599–605.

4       Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 2011; 18: 1298–310.

5       Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48: 917–29.

6      Houssami N, Skaane P. Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 2013; 22: 101–08.

7   Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 2012; 262: 788–96.

8   Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 133: 267–71.

9   Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 2012; 67: 976–81.

10 Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012; 53: 524–29.

11 Pellegrini M, Bernardi D, Di MS, et al. Analysis of proportional incidence and review of interval cancer cases observed within the mammography screening programme in Trento province, Italy. Radiol Med 2011; 116: 1217–25.

12 Caumo F, Vecchiato F, Pellegrini M, Vettorazzi M, Ciatto S, Montemezzi S. Analysis of interval cancers observed in an Italian mammography screening programme (2000–2006). Radiol Med 2009; 114: 907–14.

13 Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e1174–78.

14 American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS: breast imaging reporting and data system, Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2003.

15  Lachenbruch PA. On the sample size for studies based on McNemar’s test. Stat Med 1992; 11: 1521–25.

16  Bonett DG, Price RM. Confidence intervals for a ratio of binomial proportions based on paired data. Stat Med 2006; 25: 3039–47.

17  Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; published online Jan 3. radiol.12121373.

18  The Lancet. The breast cancer screening debate: closing a chapter? Lancet 2012; 380: 1714.

19  Biesheuvel C, Barratt A, Howard K, Houssami N, Irwig L. Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 1129–38.

20  Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, et al. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 539–44.

21  Tingberg A, Fornvik D, Mattsson S, Svahn T, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis—initial experiences. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011; 147: 180–83.

22  Feng SS, Sechopoulos I. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology 2012; 263: 35–42.

23  Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 2012; 19: 166–71.

A very good and down-to-earth comment on this article was made by Jules H Sumkin who disclosed that he is an unpaid member of SAB Hologic Inc and have a PI research agreement between University of Pittsburgh and Hologic Inc.

The results of the study by Stefano Ciatto and colleagues1 are consistent with recently published prospective,2,3 retrospective,4 and observational5 reports on the same topic. The study1 had limitations, including the fact that the same radiologist interpreted screens sequentially the same day without cross-balancing which examination was read first. Also, the false-negative findings for integrated 2D and 3D mammography, and therefore absolute benefit from the procedure, could not be adequately assessed because cases recalled by 2D mammography alone (141 cases) did not result in a single detection of an additional cancer while the recalls from the integrated 2D and 3D mammography alone (73 cases) resulted in the detection of 20 additional cancers. Nevertheless, the results are in strong agreement with other studies reporting of substantial performance improvements when the screening is done with integrated 2D and 3D mammography.

I disagree with the conclusion of the study with regards to the urgent need for randomised clinical trials of integrated 2D and 3D versus 2D mammography. First, to assess differences in mortality as a result of an imaging-based diagnostic method, a randomised trial will require several repeated screens by the same method in each study group, and the strong results from all studies to date will probably result in substantial crossover and self-selection biases over time. Second, because of the high survival rate (or low mortality rate) of breast cancer, the study will require long follow-up times of at least 10 years. In a rapidly changing environment in terms of improvements in screening technologies and therapeutic inter­ventions, the avoidance of biases is likely to be very difficult, if not impossible. The use of the number of interval cancers and possible shifts in stage at detection, while appropriately accounting for confounders, would be almost as daunting a task. Third, the imaging detection of cancer is only the first step in many management decisions and interventions that can affect outcome. The appropriate control of biases related to patient management is highly unlikely. The arguments above, in addition to the existing reports to date that show substantial improvements in cancer detection, particularly with the detection of invasive cancers, with a simultaneous reduction in recall rates, support the argument that a randomised trial is neither necessary nor warranted. The current technology might be obsolete by the time results of an appropriately done and analysed randomised trial is made public.

In order to better link the information given by “scientific” papers to the context of daily patients’ reality I suggest to spend some time reviewing few of the videos in the below links:

  1. The following group of videos is featured on a website by Siemens. Nevertheless, the presenting radiologists are leading practitioners who affects thousands of lives every year – What the experts say about tomosynthesis. – click on ECR 2013
  2. Breast Tomosynthesis in Practice – part of a commercial ad of the Washington Radiology Associates featured on the website of Diagnostic Imaging. As well, affects thousands of lives in the Washington area every year.

The pivotal questions yet to be answered are:

  1. What should be done in order to translate increase in sensitivity and early detection into decrease in mortality?

  2. What is the price of such increase in sensitivity in terms of quality of life and health-care costs and is it worth-while to pay?

An article that summarises positively the experience of introducing Tomosynthesis into routine screening practice was recently published on AJR:

Implementation of Breast Tomosynthesis in a Routine Screening Practice: An Observational Study

Stephen L. Rose1, Andra L. Tidwell1, Louis J. Bujnoch1, Anne C. Kushwaha1, Amy S. Nordmann1 and Russell Sexton, Jr.1

Affiliation: 1 All authors: TOPS Comprehensive Breast Center, 17030 Red Oak Dr, Houston, TX 77090.

Citation: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2013;200:1401-1408



OBJECTIVE. Digital mammography combined with tomosynthesis is gaining clinical acceptance, but data are limited that show its impact in the clinical environment. We assessed the changes in performance measures, if any, after the introduction of tomosynthesis systems into our clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this observational study, we used verified practice- and outcome-related databases to compute and compare recall rates, biopsy rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for six radiologists who interpreted screening mammography studies without (n = 13,856) and with (n = 9499) the use of tomosynthesis. Two-sided analyses (significance declared at p < 0.05) accounting for reader variability, age of participants, and whether the examination in question was a baseline were performed.

RESULTS. For the group as a whole, the introduction and routine use of tomosynthesis resulted in significant observed changes in recall rates from 8.7% to 5.5% (p < 0.001), nonsignificant changes in biopsy rates from 15.2 to 13.5 per 1000 screenings (p = 0.59), and cancer detection rates from 4.0 to 5.4 per 1000 screenings (p = 0.18). The invasive cancer detection rate increased from 2.8 to 4.3 per 1000 screening examinations (p = 0.07). The positive predictive value for recalls increased from 4.7% to 10.1% (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION. The introduction of breast tomosynthesis into our practice was associated with a significant reduction in recall rates and a simultaneous increase in breast cancer detection rates.

Here are the facts in tables and pictures from this article

Table 1 AJR

Table 2-3 AJR


Table 4 AJR


p1 ajr

p2 ajr

Other articles related to the management of breast cancer were published on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal:

Automated Breast Ultrasound System (‘ABUS’) for full breast scanning: The beginning of structuring a solution for an acute need!

Introducing smart-imaging into radiologists’ daily practice.

Not applying evidence-based medicine drives up the costs of screening for breast-cancer in the USA.

New Imaging device bears a promise for better quality control of breast-cancer lumpectomies – considering the cost impact

Harnessing Personalized Medicine for Cancer Management, Prospects of Prevention and Cure: Opinions of Cancer Scientific Leaders @

Predicting Tumor Response, Progression, and Time to Recurrence

“The Molecular pathology of Breast Cancer Progression”

Personalized medicine gearing up to tackle cancer

What could transform an underdog into a winner?

Mechanism involved in Breast Cancer Cell Growth: Function in Early Detection & Treatment

Nanotech Therapy for Breast Cancer

A Strategy to Handle the Most Aggressive Breast Cancer: Triple-negative Tumors

Breakthrough Technique Images Breast Tumors in 3-D With Great Clarity, Reduced Radiation

Closing the Mammography gap

Imaging: seeing or imagining? (Part 1)

Imaging: seeing or imagining? (Part 2)

Read Full Post »