Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 µm computed radiography compared with screen–film mammography in operative breast specimens

Abstract

Objective: To compare reader ratings of the clinical diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 mm computed radiography (CR) systems with screen-film mammography (SFM) in operative specimens. Methods: Mammograms of 57 fresh operative breast specimens were analysed by 10 readers. Exposures were made with identical position and compression with three mammographic systems (Fuji 100CR, 50CR and SFM). Images were anonymised and readers blinded to the CR system used. A five-point comparative scoring system (22 to +2) was used to assess seven quality criteria and overall diagnostic value. Statistical analysis was subsequently performed of reader ratings (n516 925). Results: For most quality criteria, both CR systems were rated as equivalent to or better than SFM. The CR systems were significantly better at demonstrating skin edge and background tissue (p,1610 25 ). Microcalcification was best demonstrated on the CR50 system (p,1610 25 ). The overall diagnostic value of both CR systems was rated as being as good as or better than SFM (p,1610 25 ). Conclusion: In this clinical setting, the overall diagnostic performance of both CR systems was as good as or better than SFM, with the CR50 system performing better than the CR100. There are currently three technologies widely available for diagnostic mammography: screen-film mammography (SFM) and two forms of large-field digital mammography [1]. The use of the term full-field digital mammography (FFDM) varies in the published literature and has been applied to both computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR). Small-field digital mammography (SFDM) is mainly used for imaging during stereotactic biopsy [2].The advantages of digital mammography over SFM include: improved sensitivity in dense breast tissue, reduced radiation dose, the ability to manipulate images for review, and digital storage and retrieval methods [3]. CR was the earliest digital system in use. Imaging cassettes contain a re-useable photostimulable phosphor, replacing the traditional screen-film cassettes, and are then transferred to a laser reader. DR has an in-built detector and reader. Digital mammography has a lower spatial resolution than SFM, but has a very high contrast resolution. This allows the overall resolution of digital mammography to be at least equivalent to SFM [4][5][6][7][8], even when viewing calcification smaller than the pixel size [9]. Some CR systems have not met the quality standards of a number of governing bodies for mammography, including the European Network of Reference Assessment Centres (EUREF) and the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) [10,11]. This is related to the resolution achievable with 100 mm cassettes [12]. It is now known that CR systems using 50 mm cassettes can provide improved resolution, at an acceptable mean glandular dose, and have been approved for screening by the NHSBSP [13][14][15].Phantom studies indicate that the resolution and performance of DR are greater than those of CR [16,17], but have limitations. Although there are many clini...

Análise Do Padrão De Resistência Antimicrobiana E Dos Fatores De Risco Das Infecções Estafilocócicas No Período Neonatal Em Um Hospital De Referência Em Pediatria: Uma Coorte Retrospectiva

“…Já o sistema direto se diferencia do outro pela ausência da etapa intermediária de conversão, ou seja, os fótons de raios X interagem diretamente com o material da placa eletrônica, a qual é formada geralmente por um substrato à base de Selênio amorfo (a-Se), acoplado à matriz de TFT onde os elétrons são liberados(PISANO;YAFFE, 2005).Os fatores técnicos que envolvem a aquisição desses sistemas, os valores das doses recebidas pela paciente e a qualidade da imagem não são parâmetros de fácil entendimento para a maioria dos usuários (WILLIAMS; KRUPINSKI; STRAUSS, 2007).Estudos mostram o potencial dos sistemas digitais, tanto na detecção dos achados mamográficos, como na diminuição das doses. Em 2011,Pagliari et al (PAGLIARI;HOANG;REDDY, 2012) citaram que o sistema CR não possui o mesmo potencial de evolução que a do sistema DR. E também não possibilitam manter uma dose média glandular mais baixa e nem são capazes de se igualarem à resolução espacial do sistema DR. Uma das vantagens é possibilitar o uso de um maior intervalo útil de exposição (dynamic range), permitindo ajustes da imagem e evitando repetições, embora isso possa, às vezes, expor a paciente a doses desnecessárias.…”