Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications.
Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3348/kjr.2005.6.4.214
复制
发表时间：
2005-10
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Choe YH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kim HS;Han BK;Choo KS;Jeon YH;Kim JH;Choe YH
我们想要比较两种不同的监视器上的屏幕胶片乳房x线照相术（SFM）和软拷贝全视野数字乳房x线照相术（s-FFDM）检测和表征微钙化的能力。对40例同时行SFM和FFDM间隔不到6个月的微钙化患者（3例为恶性病变，37例为良性病变）的图像，由3位读者独立评估。在乳腺x线摄影专用审查工作站（RWS, 2K×2.5K）上对SFM和FFDM进行了三次阅读，并在高分辨率PACS监视器上对FFDM进行了阅读（1.7K×2.3K）。采用三点评分法对图像质量、乳房组成、微钙化的数量和显著性进行评价，并将乳房x线检查分为正常、良性、低关注、中至高关注4类。s-FFDM（在RWS、PACS和两者上）的图像质量、微钙化的数量和显著性分别优于SFM的85.0%、80.0%和52.5% (p < 0.01)，两种监视器上s-FFDM的图像质量、微钙化的数量和显著性分别为15.0%、12.5%和35.0% （p < 0.01）。三次阅读中乳房x线摄影对微钙化的评估类别是相似的。s-FFDM的图像质量优于SFM，并能更好地评估微钙化。此外，在评估微钙化方面，带有PACS监测器的s-FFDM与带有RWS的s-FFDM相当。
We wanted to compare the ability of screen-film mammography (SFM) and soft-copy full-field digital mammography (s-FFDM) on two different monitors to detect and characterize microcalcifications. The images of 40 patients with microcalcifications (three patients had malignant lesion and 37 patients had benign lesion), who underwent both SFM and FFDM at an interval of less than six months, were independently evaluated by three readers. Three reading sessions were undertaken for SFM and for FFDM on a mammography-dedicated review workstation (RWS, 2K×2.5K), and for FFDM on a high-resolution PACS monitor (1.7K×2.3K). The image quality, breast composition and the number and conspicuity of the microcalcifications were evaluated using a three-point rating method, and the mammographic assessment was classified into 4 categories (normal, benign, low concern and moderate to great concern). The image quality, the number and conspicuity of the microcalcifications by s-FFDM (on the RWS, PACS and both) were superior to those by SFM in 85.0%, 80.0% and 52.5% of the cases, respectively (p < 0.01), and those by the s-FFDM on the two different monitors were similar in 15.0%, 12.5% and 35.0% of the cases, respectively (p > 0.01). The mammographic assessment category for the microcalcifications in the three reading sessions was similar. s-FFDM gives a superior image quality to SFM and it is better at evaluating microcalcifications. In addition, s-FFDM with the PACS monitor is comparable to s-FFDM with the RWS for evaluating microcalcifications.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5
作者：
Venta, LA;Hendrick, RE;Cutter, G
通讯作者：
Cutter, G
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Leung, JWT
通讯作者：
Leung, JWT
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Obenauer, S;Luftner-Nagel, S;Grabbe, E
通讯作者：
Grabbe, E
影响因子：
19.7
作者：
Pisano, ED;Cole, EB;Walsh, R
通讯作者：
Walsh, R
DOI：
10.1055/s-2007-1015512
发表时间：
1997-08-01
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Funke, M;Hermann, KP;Grabbe, E
通讯作者：
Grabbe, E