Cargando…

Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom

Objective. To compare the detection of microcalcifications on mammograms of an anthropomorphic breast phantom acquired by a direct digital flat-panel detector mammography system (FPM) versus a stereotactic breast biopsy system utilizing CCD (charge-coupled device) technology with either a 1024 or 51...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krug, Kathrin Barbara, Stützer, Hartmut, Frommolt, Peter, Boecker, Julia, Bovenschulte, Henning, Sendler, Volker, Lackner, Klaus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22332015
http://dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/701054
_version_ 1782223349185773568
author Krug, Kathrin Barbara
Stützer, Hartmut
Frommolt, Peter
Boecker, Julia
Bovenschulte, Henning
Sendler, Volker
Lackner, Klaus
author_facet Krug, Kathrin Barbara
Stützer, Hartmut
Frommolt, Peter
Boecker, Julia
Bovenschulte, Henning
Sendler, Volker
Lackner, Klaus
author_sort Krug, Kathrin Barbara
collection PubMed
description Objective. To compare the detection of microcalcifications on mammograms of an anthropomorphic breast phantom acquired by a direct digital flat-panel detector mammography system (FPM) versus a stereotactic breast biopsy system utilizing CCD (charge-coupled device) technology with either a 1024 or 512 acquisition matrix (1024 CCD and 512 CCD). Materials and Methods. Randomly distributed silica beads (diameter 100–1400 μm) and anthropomorphic scatter bodies were applied to 48 transparent films. The test specimens were radiographed on a direct digital FPM and by the indirect 1024 CCD and 512 CCD techniques. Four radiologists rated the monitor-displayed images independently of each other in random order. Results. The rate of correct positive readings for the “number of detectable microcalcifications” for silica beads of 100–199 μm in diameter was 54.2%, 50.0% and 45.8% by FPM, 1024 CCD and 512 CCD, respectively. The inter-rater variability was most pronounced for silica beads of 100–199 μm in diameter. The greatest agreement with the gold standard was observed for beads >400 μm in diameter across all methods. Conclusion. Stereotactic spot images taken by 1024 matrix CCD technique are diagnostically equivalent to direct digital flat-panel mammograms for visualizing simulated microcalcifications >400 μm in diameter.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3276250
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32762502012-02-13 Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom Krug, Kathrin Barbara Stützer, Hartmut Frommolt, Peter Boecker, Julia Bovenschulte, Henning Sendler, Volker Lackner, Klaus Int J Breast Cancer Research Article Objective. To compare the detection of microcalcifications on mammograms of an anthropomorphic breast phantom acquired by a direct digital flat-panel detector mammography system (FPM) versus a stereotactic breast biopsy system utilizing CCD (charge-coupled device) technology with either a 1024 or 512 acquisition matrix (1024 CCD and 512 CCD). Materials and Methods. Randomly distributed silica beads (diameter 100–1400 μm) and anthropomorphic scatter bodies were applied to 48 transparent films. The test specimens were radiographed on a direct digital FPM and by the indirect 1024 CCD and 512 CCD techniques. Four radiologists rated the monitor-displayed images independently of each other in random order. Results. The rate of correct positive readings for the “number of detectable microcalcifications” for silica beads of 100–199 μm in diameter was 54.2%, 50.0% and 45.8% by FPM, 1024 CCD and 512 CCD, respectively. The inter-rater variability was most pronounced for silica beads of 100–199 μm in diameter. The greatest agreement with the gold standard was observed for beads >400 μm in diameter across all methods. Conclusion. Stereotactic spot images taken by 1024 matrix CCD technique are diagnostically equivalent to direct digital flat-panel mammograms for visualizing simulated microcalcifications >400 μm in diameter. SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research 2011 2010-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3276250/ /pubmed/22332015 http://dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/701054 Text en Copyright © 2011 Kathrin Barbara Krug et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Krug, Kathrin Barbara
Stützer, Hartmut
Frommolt, Peter
Boecker, Julia
Bovenschulte, Henning
Sendler, Volker
Lackner, Klaus
Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom
title Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom
title_full Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom
title_fullStr Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom
title_full_unstemmed Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom
title_short Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom
title_sort image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an indirect small-field ccd technique using a high-contrast phantom
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22332015
http://dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/701054
work_keys_str_mv AT krugkathrinbarbara imagequalityofdigitaldirectflatpanelmammographyversusanindirectsmallfieldccdtechniqueusingahighcontrastphantom
AT stutzerhartmut imagequalityofdigitaldirectflatpanelmammographyversusanindirectsmallfieldccdtechniqueusingahighcontrastphantom
AT frommoltpeter imagequalityofdigitaldirectflatpanelmammographyversusanindirectsmallfieldccdtechniqueusingahighcontrastphantom
AT boeckerjulia imagequalityofdigitaldirectflatpanelmammographyversusanindirectsmallfieldccdtechniqueusingahighcontrastphantom
AT bovenschultehenning imagequalityofdigitaldirectflatpanelmammographyversusanindirectsmallfieldccdtechniqueusingahighcontrastphantom
AT sendlervolker imagequalityofdigitaldirectflatpanelmammographyversusanindirectsmallfieldccdtechniqueusingahighcontrastphantom
AT lacknerklaus imagequalityofdigitaldirectflatpanelmammographyversusanindirectsmallfieldccdtechniqueusingahighcontrastphantom