Introduction:The objective of this literature review is to highlight both the recent promises of Nanoparticles (NPs) for breast imaging and potential solutions to the challenges that arise with using different types of NPs. Methods: We searched for key terms on PubMed including NPs, MRI, CT, and contrast agent (CA). We selected 57 articles published from 2012 to 2020 and discussed NP such as nanocarriers, titanium oxide tubes, and carbon nanotubes, as well as gold, gold-silver alloy, silver, magnetic, gadolinium dicarbide, allochroic, and calcium phosphate. Results: While early studies on NPs investigated their ability to target breast cancer stem cells, as well as enable the visualization of metastasis and deliver therapeutic agents with minimal toxicity, newer particles demonstrate a greater multifunctionality of NPs than previously thought. In this review, we use existing research to demonstrate the surprisingly broad range of applications of NPs with regards to breast cancer and imaging, which includes activating immune cells, identifying protein signatures for early-stage breast cancer, and ablating tumors through a laser irradiation-triggered photothermal effect. Conclusion:With the multifunctionality of NPs in mind and the challenges associated with imaging breast tissue, specifically mammographically dense breast tissue, the current knowledge of NPs should be reviewed for potential use in mammograms.

No abstract

Currently, there is a multitude of methods for evaluating the costs and benefits of programs, tools, etc. While cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is commonly used, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a more appropriate method of evaluation in clinical contexts, such as radiology practices, as CEAs use units such as life years gained as opposed to money (as is the case for CBAs). This review examines CEAs performed within the past 15 years to highlight their applications and key findings in the context of medical imaging.In total, 20 articles published between 2006 and 2022 were identified using a PubMed search for keywords including "cost-effectiveness analysis," "breast cancer," and "medical imaging," with studies lacking a substantial discussion of CEA or a related topic being excluded.CEAs have traditionally been criticized for lack of a standard methodology, despite their utility in the detection and treatment of various pathologies. Although mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the preferred and cost-effective imaging modalities for breast cancer, other imaging modalities, such as contrast-enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, may be more cost-effective in the appropriate clinical context. Different combinations of mammography and MRI screenings for certain breast cancers may also prove to be more cost-effective compared to current mammography/MRI screening schedules.While CEA has shown potential utility in estimating the costs (per unit of health gained) of different imaging tools, CEA risks ignoring important outcomes not included in the analysis and cannot address if the benefits of the imaging tool exceed its costs, as a CBA would, suggesting the need for combining several economic evaluations for a more complete understanding.

No abstract