Participation in the two most recent screening mammography appointments before a breast cancer diagnosis confers a higher protection against breast cancer death than participation in neither or onl... Background Previously, the risk of death from breast cancer was analyzed for women participating versus those not participating in the last screening examination before breast cancer diagnosis. Con...

Computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are the imaging modalities currently used for distant metastasis staging of prostate cancer (PCa). To compare standard staging modalities with newer and potentially more accurate imaging modalities. This prospective, single-centre trial (NCT03537391) enrolled 80 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥3 and/or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥20 and/or cT ≥ T3; March 2018-June 2019) to undergo primary metastasis staging with two standard and three advanced imaging modalities. The participants underwent the following five imaging examinations within 2 wk of enrolment and without a prespecified sequence: BS, CT, 99mTc-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate (99mTc-HMDP) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT, 1.5 T whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) using diffusion-weighted imaging, and 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 (18F-PSMA-1007) positron emission tomography(PET)-CT. Each modality was reviewed by two independent experts blinded to the results of the prior studies, who classified lesions as benign, equivocal, or malignant. Pessimistic and optimistic analyses were performed to resolve each equivocal diagnosis. The reference standard diagnosis was defined using all available information accrued during at least 12 mo of clinical follow-up. Patients with equivocal reference standard diagnoses underwent MRI and/or CT to search for the development of anatomical correspondence. PSMA PET-avid lesions without histopathological verification were rated to be malignant only if there was a corresponding anatomical finding suspicious for malignancy at the primary or follow-up imaging. Seventy-nine men underwent all imaging modalities except for one case of interrupted MRI. The median interval per patient between the first and the last imaging study was 8 d (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-9). The mean age was 70 yr (standard deviation: 7) and median PSA 12 ng/mL (IQR:7-23). The median follow-up was 435 d (IQR: 378-557). Metastatic disease was detected in 20 (25%) patients. The imaging modality 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT had superior sensitivity and highest inter-reader agreement. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for bone metastasis detection with PSMA PET-CT were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.96) for readers 1 and 2, respectively, while the AUC values for BS, CT, SPECT-CT, and WBMRI were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.84) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.67-0.92), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.39-0.67) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.54-0.77), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65-0.89) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62-0.88), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.74-0.96) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80), respectively, for the other four pairs of readers. The imaging method 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT detected metastatic disease in 11/20 patients in whom standard imaging was negative and influenced clinical decision making in 14/79 (18%) patients. In 12/79 cases, false positive bone disease was reported only by PSMA PET-CT. Limitations included a nonrandomised study setting and few histopathologically validated suspicious lesions. Despite the risk of false positive bone lesions, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT outperformed all other imaging methods studied for the detection of primary distant metastasis in high-risk PCa. In this report, we compared the diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced imaging. It was found that 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT) was superior to the other imaging modalities studied for the detection of distant metastasis at the time of initial diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer. PSMA PET-CT also appears to detect some nonmetastatic bone lesions.

Classic diffusely infiltrating lobular carcinoma has imaging features divergent from the breast cancers originating from the terminal ductal lobular units and from the major lactiferous ducts. Although the term “invasive lobular carcinoma” implies a site of origin within the breast lobular epithelium, we were unable to find evidence supporting this assumption. Exceptional excess of fibrous connective tissue and the unique cell architecture combined with the aberrant features at breast imaging suggest that this breast malignancy has not originated from cells lining the breast ducts and lobules. The only remaining relevant component of the fibroglandular tissue is the mesenchyme. The cells freshly isolated and cultured from diffusely infiltrating lobular carcinoma cases contained epithelial–mesenchymal hybrid cells with both epithelial and mesenchymal properties. The radiologic and histopathologic features of the tumours and expression of the mesenchymal stem cell positive markers CD73, CD90, and CD105 all suggest development in the direction of mesenchymal transition. These hybrid cells have tumour-initiating potential and have been shown to have poor prognosis and resistance to therapy targeted for malignancies of breast epithelial origin. Our work emphasizes the need for new approaches to the diagnosis and therapy of this highly fatal breast cancer subtype.

Objectives: To identify issues of principle and practice giving rise to misunderstandings in reviewing evidence, to illustrate these by reference to the Nordic Cochrane Review (NCR) and its interpretation of two trials of mammographic screening, and to draw lessons for future reviewing of published results. Methods: A narrative review of the publications of the Nordic Cochrane Review of mammographic screening (NCR), the Swedish Two-County Trial (S2C) and the Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1 and 2 (CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2). Results: The NCR concluded that the S2C was unreliable, despite the review’s complaints being shown to be mistaken, by direct reference to the original primary publications of the S2C. Repeated concerns were expressed by others about potential subversion of randomisation in CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2; however, the NCR continued to rely heavily on the results of these trials. Since 2022, however, eyewitness evidence of such subversion has been in the public domain. Conclusions: An over-reliance on nominal satisfaction of checklists of criteria in systematic reviewing can lead to erroneous conclusions. This occurred in the case of the NCR, which concluded that mammographic screening was ineffective or minimally effective. Broader and more even-handed reviews of the evidence show that screening confers a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality. Advances in knowledge: Those carrying out systematic reviews should be aware of the dangers of over-reliance on checklists and guidelines. Readers of systematic reviews should be aware that a systematic review is just another study, with the capability that all studies have of coming to incorrect conclusions. When a review seems to overturn the current position, it is essential to revisit the publications of the primary research.