Radiology · 1997
Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kimme-Smith C M, Sayre J W, McCombs M M, DeBruhl N D, Bassett L W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine whether contrast loss on mammograms obtained with tungsten (W)-molybdenum (Mo), rhodium (Rh)-Rh, and W-Rh anode-filter units affects calcification and mass detection relative to that on mammograms obtained with Mo-Mo anode-filter units.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three unfixed cadaveric breasts of 4.0-, 5.5-, or 7.0-cm thickness were imaged with three mammographic units with Mo-Mo, W-Mo, Rh-Rh, and W-Rh anode-filter combinations. Calcification clusters (<300 microm in diameter) and masses (0.5-1.2 cm) placed on the cadaveric breasts simulated abnormal mammograms. Thirty-five images without and 57 images with added calcifications and masses were acquired with a 180-speed screen-film system and interpreted by four mammographic specialists. With a 150-speed screen-film system, 10 normal images and 30 abnormal images with added calcifications were obtained with Mo-Mo and Rh-Rh equipment and read by three of the four radiologists.
RESULTS: For the 180-speed system, there were statistically significant differences (P < .05) in detection of calcifications on Mo-Mo images compared with W-Mo, Rh-Rh, and W-Rh images. These differences disappeared with the 150-speed system. For mass detection with the 180-speed system, W-Rh was significantly better than Mo-Mo (P = .02).
CONCLUSION: Dose savings and increased penetration with Rh-Rh and W-Rh anode-filter combinations may decrease calcification detection if fast screen-film systems are used, but mass detection may be improved.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three unfixed cadaveric breasts of 4.0-, 5.5-, or 7.0-cm thickness were imaged with three mammographic units with Mo-Mo, W-Mo, Rh-Rh, and W-Rh anode-filter combinations. Calcification clusters (<300 microm in diameter) and masses (0.5-1.2 cm) placed on the cadaveric breasts simulated abnormal mammograms. Thirty-five images without and 57 images with added calcifications and masses were acquired with a 180-speed screen-film system and interpreted by four mammographic specialists. With a 150-speed screen-film system, 10 normal images and 30 abnormal images with added calcifications were obtained with Mo-Mo and Rh-Rh equipment and read by three of the four radiologists.
RESULTS: For the 180-speed system, there were statistically significant differences (P < .05) in detection of calcifications on Mo-Mo images compared with W-Mo, Rh-Rh, and W-Rh images. These differences disappeared with the 150-speed system. For mass detection with the 180-speed system, W-Rh was significantly better than Mo-Mo (P = .02).
CONCLUSION: Dose savings and increased penetration with Rh-Rh and W-Rh anode-filter combinations may decrease calcification detection if fast screen-film systems are used, but mass detection may be improved.