OBJECTIVE: The goal of this work was to evaluate a possible improvement in ultrasound coverage for a dual-modality breast imaging system in the mammographic geometry. METHODS: A pilot study was performed to evaluate use of a rubber dam to retain ultrasound gel and improve imaging coverage at the breast periphery on a combined imaging system consisting of an ultrasound scanner and a digital x-ray tomosynthesis unit. Several dams were constructed to encompass the shapes of various sizes of compressed breasts. Visual tracings of the breast-to-paddle contact area and breast periphery were made for 8 breasts to estimate coverage area. Two readers independently reviewed the resulting images and were asked to rate the overall breast image quality. RESULTS: The percentages of breast in contact with the paddle were greater (P < .01) and the linear dimensions of breast in contact with the paddle were larger (P < .05) with the rubber dam than without it. With the dam, the mean estimated area of the breast in contact with the paddle increased 14%, whereas the mean increase in the fraction of the total breast area in contact with paddle was 30%. The difference was due to the mean total projected area of the breast decreasing 12% as the dam was pressed against it. The image quality of automated ultrasound with the rubber dam was consistently judged to be superior to that without the dam. CONCLUSIONS: This method can enhance the absolute and percentage area of the breast in contact with the paddle, reducing noncontact gaps at the breast periphery. Gently pressing the breast periphery with the dam inserted toward the chest wall improves coverage in automated breast ultrasound scanning.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this work was to evaluate a possible improvement in ultrasound coverage for a dual-modality breast imaging system in the mammographic geometry. METHODS: A pilot study was performed to evaluate use of a rubber dam to retain ultrasound gel and improve imaging coverage at the breast periphery on a combined imaging system consisting of an ultrasound scanner and a digital x-ray tomosynthesis unit. Several dams were constructed to encompass the shapes of various sizes of compressed breasts. Visual tracings of the breast-to-paddle contact area and breast periphery were made for 8 breasts to estimate coverage area. Two readers independently reviewed the resulting images and were asked to rate the overall breast image quality. RESULTS: The percentages of breast in contact with the paddle were greater (P < .01) and the linear dimensions of breast in contact with the paddle were larger (P < .05) with the rubber dam than without it. With the dam, the mean estimated area of the breast in contact with the paddle increased 14%, whereas the mean increase in the fraction of the total breast area in contact with paddle was 30%. The difference was due to the mean total projected area of the breast decreasing 12% as the dam was pressed against it. The image quality of automated ultrasound with the rubber dam was consistently judged to be superior to that without the dam. CONCLUSIONS: This method can enhance the absolute and percentage area of the breast in contact with the paddle, reducing noncontact gaps at the breast periphery. Gently pressing the breast periphery with the dam inserted toward the chest wall improves coverage in automated breast ultrasound scanning.
Authors: Ajay Kapur; Paul L Carson; Jeffrey Eberhard; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Kai Thomenius; Murtuza Lokhandwalla; Donald Buckley; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie; Rebecca C Booi; Gerald L LeCarpentier; Ramon Q Erkamp; Heang-Ping Chan; J Brian Fowlkes; Jerry A Thomas; Cynthia E Landberg Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-08
Authors: Rebecca C Booi; Jochen F Krücker; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Matthew O'Donnell; Ajay Kapur; Gerald L LeCarpentier; Marilyn A Roubidoux; J Brian Fowlkes; Paul L Carson Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: A Stacey-Clear; K A McCarthy; D A Hall; E Pile-Spellman; G White; C A Hulka; G J Whitman; E F Halpern; D B Kopans Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J A Shipley; F A Duck; D A Goddard; M R Hillman; M Halliwell; M G Jones; B T Thomas Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Kenneth J W Taylor; Christopher Merritt; Catherine Piccoli; Robert Schmidt; Glenn Rouse; Bruno Fornage; Eva Rubin; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Fred Winsberg; Barry Goldberg; Ellen Mendelson Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Sumedha P Sinha; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Rebecca C Booi; Gerald L LeCarpentier; Christine R Lashbrook; Kai E Thomenius; Carl L Chalek; Paul L Carson Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Cynthia E Davis; Oliver D Kripfgans; Paul L Carson Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchel M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Fouzaan Zafar; Oliver D Kripfgans; Kai Thomenius; Paul L Carson Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Frederic Padilla; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Chintana Paramagul; Sumedha P Sinha; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Gerald L Le Carpentier; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; J Brian Fowlkes; Annette D Joe; Katherine A Klein; Alexis V Nees; Mitra Noroozian; Stephanie K Patterson; Renee W Pinsky; Fong Ming Hooi; Paul L Carson Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.153