text_1: Breast cancer diagnosis gets a boost with gammagrams
text_2: "This story describes a new breast imaging modality that relies on injecting a radioactive label into the bloodstream and using a gamma radiation detector to see if tissue in the breast lights up, presumably identifying cancer cells. It is described as less painful than mammograms and perhaps cheaper than MRI. The story mentions the lack of evidence for its use as a test but at the same time provides perhaps overly enthusiastic patient anecdotes. The story makes good use of possibly disinterested experts, but their cautious statements may be overmatched by happy consumers and radiologists who have invested in the technology. The important caveat, appearing but perhaps overwhelmed in the story, is that it is not yet known whether the test works as well as current technologies (mammograms, ultrasounds and MRI), nor whether it can improve health outcomes. Whether or not it is cheaper than another test is less relevant than whether the information generated has clinical value. If this story had provided some hard data about how well or poorly this new test performs in relation to standard practice, we would have thought more highly of it. But kudos for putting this caveat so high in the story (4th sentence):  ""not enough studies have been done to show it saves lives and money"" and for trying to inject some caveats throughout."