Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Comparison of digital mammograms obtained with the cassette-type retrofit mammography flat panel detector installed on an analog system and the conventional full-field digital mammography
Author(s): Wontaek Seo; Su Hyun Lee; Kahee Jung; Mijung Jo; Hyeonran Lee; Choul Woo Shin; Jung Min Chang
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $17.00 $21.00

Paper Abstract

Purpose: To compare the image quality of digital mammograms obtained with a cassette-type retrofit digital mammography (CRM) flat panel detector (FPD) installed on an analog system and the conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Materials and Methods: Digital mammograms were prospectively obtained with a CRM FPD (RoseM 2430C, DRTECH Corp) installed on an analog system (Lorad M-IV, Hologic) in 90 women (median age, 49 years) who had previous mammograms obtained with the conventional FFDM units. Ninety pairs of mammograms were evaluated by two breast radiologists. The overall image quality (including contrast and sharpness) and visibility of normal structure were evaluated using a 5-point scale (1, poor; 5, excellent). If a lesion presents, the visibility of lesions was evaluated using a 4-point scale (1, not visible; 4: high conspicuity). Results: The contrast and sharpness of CRM FPD (mean, 4.1±0.8 and 4.0±0.9, respectively) were not significantly different from those of FFDM (mean, 4.2±0.5 and 4.2±0.5; P<0.05). Of 90 women, the overall image quality was similar between the two images in 39 (43%); FFDM showed better image quality in 33 (37%); CRM FPD showed better image quality in 18 (20%) (P=0.055). There were 54 lesions (44 calcifications, 6 masses, 3 asymmetries, and one mass with calcifications) in 33 women. The difference of lesion visibility between the FFDM (mean 3.3±0.8) and CRM FPD (mean 3.4±0.8) was not statistically significant (P=0.083). Conclusion: The image quality of the mammograms obtained with CRM FPD was comparable with that of FFDM.

Paper Details

Date Published: 1 March 2019
PDF: 6 pages
Proc. SPIE 10948, Medical Imaging 2019: Physics of Medical Imaging, 109485X (1 March 2019); doi: 10.1117/12.2512709
Show Author Affiliations
Wontaek Seo, DRTECH Corp. (Korea, Republic of)
Su Hyun Lee, Seoul National Univ. Hospital (Korea, Republic of)
Kahee Jung, Seoul National Univ. Hospital (Korea, Republic of)
Mijung Jo, DRTECH Corp. (Korea, Republic of)
Hyeonran Lee, DRTECH Corp. (Korea, Republic of)
Choul Woo Shin, DRTECH Corp. (Korea, Republic of)
Jung Min Chang, Seoul National Univ. Hospital (Korea, Republic of)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 10948:
Medical Imaging 2019: Physics of Medical Imaging
Taly Gilat Schmidt; Guang-Hong Chen; Hilde Bosmans, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top