Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions
Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00330-001-1269-y
复制
发表时间：
2002-07-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Grabbe, E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Obenauer, S;Luftner-Nagel, S;Grabbe, E
本研究的目的是比较屏片乳腺X射线摄影（SFM）与全视野数字乳腺X射线摄影（FFDM）的图像质量以及病变的可检测性和表征，使用两种系统采集的同一患者的等效图像。使用了两台乳腺X线摄影机，一台配有屏片系统（Senographe DMR），另一台配有数字探测器（Senographe 2000 D，均为GEMS）。在同一天对55例经细胞学或组织学证实的肿瘤患者进行了屏幕胶片和数字乳腺X线摄影。与此同时，由三名观察员以随机顺序审查了75名无肿瘤患者的数字乳房X线照片和相应的不超过1.5年的既往屏幕-胶片乳房X线照片。评价对比度、曝光和伪影的存在。不同的细节，如皮肤，乳头后区，和实质结构，根据三点排名规模进行判断。最后，微钙化和病变的可检测性进行了比较，并与组织学。76%的屏-片乳腺X线照片的图像对比度被判定为良好，20%为满意，4%为不满意。99%的数字乳房X线照片被判定为良好，1%的病例不满意。屏-片系统曝光不当占18%（10%曝光过度，8%曝光不足）。在所有病例中，有4%的数字乳房X线照片曝光不当，但经过后处理后质量可接受。在78%的屏幕胶片中发现了伪影，其中大多数没有意义，而在数字乳房X线照片中没有发现伪影。不同的解剖区域，如皮肤、乳头后区域和致密实质区域，在数字化乳腺X线摄影中比在屏-片乳腺X线摄影中更好地可视化。所有恶性肿瘤均由3名放射科医生观察到;然而，数字乳腺X线摄影可以更好地表征乳腺成像报告和数据系统（BI-RADSZZZ;）类别中的这些病变（FFDM在165例病例中的23例优于SFM，而SFM在165例判定病例中的9例）。总之，数字乳腺X射线摄影提供了一致的高图像质量，具有更好的对比度，没有伪影。数字图像中的病变检测与屏幕-胶片图像中的病变检测相同;然而，BI-RADS分类的病变分类略好。
The objective of this study was to compare screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) regarding image quality as well as delectability and characterization of lesions using equivalent images of the same patient acquired with both systems. Two mammography units were used, one with a screen-film system (Senographe DMR) and the other with a digital detector (Senographe 2000D, both GEMS). Screen-film and digital mammograms were performed on 55 patients with cytologically or histologically proven tumors on the same day. Together with these, 75 digital mammograms of patients without tumor and the corresponding previous screen-film mammograms not older than 1.5 years were reviewed by three observers in a random order. Contrast, exposure, and the presence of artifacts were evaluated. Different details, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and the parenchymal structures, were judged according to a three-point ranking scale. Finally, the detectability of microcalcifications and lesions were compared and correlated to histology. Image contrast was judged to be good in 76%, satisfactory in 20%, and unsatisfactory in 4% of screen-film mammograms. Digital mammograms were judged to be good in 99% and unsatisfactory in 1% of cases. Improper exposure of screen-film system occurred in 18% (10% overexposed and 8% underexposed). Digital mammograms were improperly exposed in 4% of all cases but were of acceptable quality after postprocessing. Artifacts, most of them of no significance, were found in 78% of screen-film and in none of the digital mammograms. Different anatomical regions, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and dense parenchymal areas, were better visualized in digital than in screen-film mammography. All malignant tumors were seen by the three radiologists; however, digital mammograms allowed a better characterization of these lesions to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADSZZZ;) categories (FFDM better than SFM in 23 of 165 vs 9 of 165 judged cases in SFM). In conclusion, digital mammography offers a consistent, high image quality in combination with a better contrast and without artifacts. Lesion detection in digital images was equal to that in screen-film images; however, categorization of the lesions to the BI-RADS classification was slightly better.