No abstract

BackgroundTo inform cost-effective decisions in purchasing new medical liquid crystal displays, we compared the image quality in displays made by three manufacturers.MethodsWe recruited 19 radiologists and residents to compare the image quality of four liquid crystal displays, including 3-megapixel Barco®, Eizo®, and NEC® displays and a 6-megapixel Barco display. The evaluators were blinded to the manufacturers’ names. Technical assessments were based on acceptance criteria and test patterns proposed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Radiological assessments were performed on images from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18. They included X-ray images of the thorax, knee, and breast, a computed tomographic image of the thorax, and a magnetic resonance image of the brain. Image quality was scored on an analog scale (range 0–10). Statistical analysis was performed with repeated-measures analysis of variance.ResultsThe Barco 3-megapixel display passed all acceptance criteria. The Eizo and NEC displays passed the acceptance criteria, except for the darkest pixel value in the grayscale display function. The Barco 6-megapixel display failed criteria for the maximum luminance response and the veiling glare. Mean radiological assessment scores were 7.8±1.1 (Barco 3-megapixel), 7.8±1.2 (Eizo), 8.1±1.0 (NEC), and 8.1±1.0 (Barco 6-megapixel). No significant differences were found between displays.ConclusionAccording to the tested criteria, all the displays had comparable image quality; however, there was a three-fold difference in price between the most and least expensive displays.

Objective: This study assessed the short-term and the long-term breast cancer rate in patients with benign histopathologic results after a vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy (VASB) for calcifications. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients who had a benign diagnosis after VASB to analyze breast calcifications. Data of breast cancer development at short-term (four years) and longterm follow-up was gathered. Breast cancer rates in our cohort were compared to the breast cancer incidence in the general population. Results: Of 1376 patients who underwent VASB to analyze breast calcifications, 823 had a benign histopathologic diagnosis. During short-term follow-up, eight patients developed breast cancer. During the mean long-term follow-up period of 9.3 ± 3.1 years, 22 patients were diagnosed with ipsilateral breast cancer. The incidence rate of breast cancer after benign biopsy was comparable to the rate in the general population. Conclusion:In patients with VASB-confirmed benign calcifications of the breast, we found no excess incidence of ipsilateral breast cancer during ten years follow-up. Therefore, in patients with an increased risk of breast cancer (due to a history of breast cancer or familial risk) annual mammography should be sufficient. Patients with a population-based risk may be monitored via biennial mammography by the national screening program. More frequent screening would provide no benefit.