首页> 外文期刊>European Journal of Radiology >Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
【24h】

Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.

机译:数字化乳腺摄影术中的图像质量,病变检测和诊断功效:全场数字化乳腺摄影术与使用数字存储磷光板的基于计算机射线照相的乳腺摄影术。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality, the lesion detection, and the diagnostic efficacy of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates (DSPM) in the evaluation of breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 150 patients with suspicious breast lesions underwent FFDM and DSPM. Nine aspects of image quality (brightness, contrast, sharpness, noise, artifacts, and the detection of anatomic structures, i.e., skin, retromamillary space, glandular tissue, and calcifications) were evaluated by five radiologists. In addition, the detection of breast lesions and the diagnostic efficacy, based on the BI-RADS classification, were evaluated with histologic and follow-up correlation. RESULTS: For contrast, sharpness, and the detection of all anatomic structures, FFDM was rated significantly better (p<0.05). Mass lesions were equally detected, whereas FFDM detected more lesions consisting of calcifications (85 versus 75). DSPM yielded two false-negative results. Both lesions were rated BI-RADS 4 with FFDM, but BI-RADS 2 with DSPM. Both were invasive carcinoma at histology. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of FFDM were 1.0, 0.397, 0.636, 1.0, and 0.707, compared to 0.974, 0.397, 0.630, 0.935, and 0.693 of DSPM. CONCLUSION: Based on image quality parameters, FFDM is, in part, significantly better than DSPM. Furthermore, the detection of breast lesions with calcifications is favorable with FFDM. However, the diagnostic efficacy of FFDM and DSPM was equal. The interpretation of the false-negative results suggests that the perception and characterization of breast lesions is not defined solely by the digital mammography system but is strongly influenced by the radiologist, who is one of the determinants in the interpretation of breast imaging.
机译:目的:比较全视野数字乳腺X线摄影术(FFDM)和基于数字放射成像的乳腺X线摄影术(使用数字存储荧光板(DSPM)评估乳腺病变)的图像质量,病变检测和诊断功效。材料与方法:在这项前瞻性研究中,对150名可疑乳腺病变患者进行了FFDM和DSPM。由五名放射科医生评估了九个方面的图像质量(亮度,对比度,清晰度,噪声,伪影以及解剖结构的检测,即皮肤,乳腺后间隙,腺体组织和钙化)。此外,根据组织学和随访的相关性,评估了基于BI-RADS分类的乳腺病变的检测和诊断功效。结果:对于对比度,清晰度和所有解剖结构的检测,FFDM的评分明显更高(p <0.05)。均能检测到肿块病变,而FFDM可以检测到更多由钙化组成的病变(85对75)。 DSPM产生两个假阴性结果。两种病变的FFDM等级均为BI-RADS 4,而DSPM等级为BI-RADS 2。两者在组织学上均为浸润性癌。 FFDM的敏感性,特异性,PPV,NPV和准确性分别为1.0、0.397、0.636、1.0和0.707,而DSPM为0.974、0.397、0.630、0.935和0.693。结论:基于图像质量参数,FFDM在某种程度上明显优于DSPM。此外,FFDM有利于钙化乳腺病变的检测。但是,FFDM和DSPM的诊断功效是相同的。对假阴性结果的解释表明,乳腺病变的感知和特征不仅由数字乳腺X线照相术系统定义,而且还受到放射科医师的强烈影响,放射科医师是确定乳腺影像学的决定因素之一。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号