Literature DB >> 10354868

Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques.

S Kheddache1, A Thilander-Klang, B Lanhede, L G Månsson, N Bjurstam, P Ackerholm, L Björneld.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the image quality of storage phosphor plates with that in screen-film radiograms in mammography. Two anode/filter combinations were also compared--Mo/Mo and W/Rh. S Storage phosphor plates, generation IIIN (Fuji, Tokyo, Japan) and a conventional screen-film system (Kodak, Rochester, N. Y.) were evaluated using two mammographic units. One unit had a 0.6-mm focal spot, an anode/filter combination of Mo/Mo and no grid (AMo); the other had a 0.3-mm focal spot, a grid, and two possible combinations of anode/filter Mo/Mo (BMo) and W/Rh (BW). Simulated tumours and microcalcifications were randomly positioned in an anthropomorphic breast phantom (RMI model 165, no. 210-009, Radiation Measurements Inc., Middleton, Wisconsin). The image quality was evaluated using a modified version of receiver operating characteristics analysis. Five observers evaluated 300 films and 300 hard copy images each. Radiation doses were also determined. The image quality of the conventional screen-film images was significantly better than that for the storage phosphor plate mammograms. The BMo system rated best, for the detection of both tumours and microcalcifications, although it was not significantly different from the BW system. Systems BMo and BW rated significantly better than the AMo system for both image receptors studied. The mean absorbed dose was twice as high for the BMo system as for the AMo and BW systems for both conventional and digital technique. The mammograms produced with the screen-film combination gave a significantly better detectability than the storage phosphor plates used in this study. Substantial dose reduction could be achieved using an anode/filter combination of W/Rh instead of Mo/Mo with no significant loss of information in the images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10354868     DOI: 10.1007/s003300050716

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  4 in total

Review 1.  Digital mammography: current state and future aspects.

Authors:  U Fischer; K P Hermann; F Baum
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications.

Authors:  Hye Seong Kim; Boo Kyung Han; Ki Seok Choo; Yong Hwan Jeon; Jung Han Kim; Yeon Hyeon Choe
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2005 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 3.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.

Authors:  T Svahn; B Hemdal; M Ruschin; D P Chakraborty; I Andersson; A Tingberg; S Mattsson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.039

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.