RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The image quality of a newly developed full-field digital phase contrast mammography (PCM) system and of a conventional screen-film (SF) mammography system were compared via images of a phantom and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of clinical images. METHODS: Magnified (1.75X) PCM images were scanned (sampling rate, 43.75 microm) and then reduced to original-sized, 25-micron pixel images printed on photothermographic film. Along with corresponding SF images, the phantom images were evaluated subjectively, and the clinical images of 38 patients were subjected to ROC analysis of mass and microcalcification. RESULTS: In the image quality of a phantom, the PCM exceeded the SF. In both mass and microcalcification, the ROC analysis Az values of the PCM clinical images surpassed those of the SF images. CONCLUSION: The PCM provides better images than the SF. Clinical trials suggest superior detection of both mass and microcalcification by full-field digital PCM over conventional SF mammography.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The image quality of a newly developed full-field digital phase contrast mammography (PCM) system and of a conventional screen-film (SF) mammography system were compared via images of a phantom and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of clinical images. METHODS: Magnified (1.75X) PCM images were scanned (sampling rate, 43.75 microm) and then reduced to original-sized, 25-micron pixel images printed on photothermographic film. Along with corresponding SF images, the phantom images were evaluated subjectively, and the clinical images of 38 patients were subjected to ROC analysis of mass and microcalcification. RESULTS: In the image quality of a phantom, the PCM exceeded the SF. In both mass and microcalcification, the ROC analysis Az values of the PCM clinical images surpassed those of the SF images. CONCLUSION: The PCM provides better images than the SF. Clinical trials suggest superior detection of both mass and microcalcification by full-field digital PCM over conventional SF mammography.
Authors: S D Auweter; J Herzen; M Willner; S Grandl; K Scherer; F Bamberg; M F Reiser; F Pfeiffer; K Hellerhoff Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: T Sato; N Nakamoto; T Abe; Y Fukushima; Y Tomaru; Y Sakata; M Nakazawa; A Nakamoto; H Kawasaki; Y Wada; H Ohara; R Araki; J Tanaka; T Yoda Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.419