3-D mammography improves cancer detection ......

cp418

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/1602...

3-D mammography improves cancer detection and cuts 'call backs' over three years

Study offers first look into long term performance of 3-D mammography screening

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/02/ca...

Can radiation from mammograms cause cancer?

Radiation from CT scans, X-rays, and even mammograms can increase the risk of breast cancer

(I'm interested to know the difference in radiation exposure from repeat scans - especially for those of us getting yearly or frequent scans done. This information is important to make informed decisions and discussion with your doctor. I had an incident where was I told the radiologist preferred one methodology because it was "convenient" and preferred. That is not a satisfactory response IMO. Each patient is different and may best utilize different scanning methods --- enough of this one size fits all. Patients with dense breasts need more effective scans. So respect our differences and treat us accordingly.)

cp418

ok - I may have found the answer to my question.

http://www.stopcancerfund.org/p-breast-cancer/is-d...

"Radiation exposure: The 3D test takes a few seconds longer than 2D digital or film mammography (adding a few seconds of discomfort). The amount of radiation exposure is slightly higher for combining 3D and 2D mammograms. The newer, low-dose 3D-only mammograms use less radiation than a 2D mammogram.

Because digital mammography—2D and 3D—is relatively new, no one has really figured out what all the health risks and benefits are, including the added cancer risk for women with larger breasts who may need additional images and therefore get more exposure to radiation."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25554018

http://volparasolutions.com/news/tomosynthesis-rad...

"In the study being presented at AAPM, "Which Women Based on Clinical Benefits and Dose Should Be Considered for Breast Screening with Tomosynthesis?" researchers evaluated volumetric breast density and the mean glandular dose (MGD) imparted by mammography and tomosynthesis on a patient-specific basis in order to determine which women might benefit from tomosynthesis in consideration with the clinical benefits. Results demonstrated that for dense breasts, those with a Volpara Density Grade (VDG) (analogous to BIRADS) of 3 and 4, the patient-specific dose is equal or even lower for tomosynthesis than on mammography. However, for low density breasts, the dose was significantly greater in the tomosynthesis examination than for the mammogram.

"While at higher breast density the dose is approximately equal or lower, when comparing MGD in tomosynthesis and mammography examinations at lower breast density, the mammographic dose is lower than in tomosynthesis, sometimes substantially. Since the possibility of lesion masking is directly related to breast density, clinicians might want to consider the diagnostic benefits versus the dose given in tomosynthesis," said Ralph Highnam, Ph.D., CEO of Volpara Solutions and a co-author."