PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L Gormley

Publications and source records attributed to L Gormley.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Digital mammography. A comparison of two digitization methods.

A preliminary study of 40 different radiodense breasts digitized with a Fuji high resolution BAFBr:EU2+ imaging plate enabled us to establish acceptable enhancement procedures with a Fuji Computer Radiology 201 system. Screen-film images of 36 of these breasts were also digitized and enhanced on a Damon DETECT TV system. Three radiologists specializing in mammography reviewed each pair of images. For the 20 normal examinations, both digital methods were considered equivalent in image quality, while for the 16 cases containing pathology (masses and/or calcifications) the TV system was considered to provide the best image quality twice as often as the laser scanned system. The radiologists rejected both methods of enhancement for 8% of the images. Despite cost differences between the two systems, both have equal capability in penetrating dense breasts. However, both systems have several significant deficiencies which preclude their clinical use. At the present time, there is no objective justification for using either system for breast imaging other than in an experimental capacity.

Female↗

Diagnosis of breast calcifications: comparison of contact, magnified, and television-enhanced images.

Matched contact and microfocal-spot-magnified images of 31 breasts, each containing a cluster of microcalcifications within a biopsy-proved benign (n = 21) or malignant (n = 10) lesion, were evaluated. Each matched set consisted of one image magnified 1.5 or 2.0 times by a microfocal spot; one contact film-screen mammogram; and one television-digitized, enhanced, and optically magnified contact film-screen mammogram. Three experienced mammographers and three senior diagnostic radiology residents with 2 weeks of training in mammography interpreted the calcifications. The average area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for the experienced mammographers was 0.60 for contact radiographs, 0.61 for the television-digitized images, and 0.69 for the microfocal-spot-magnified radiographs. The less experienced senior residents scored below a random choice, 0.44, for the television-digitized images; 0.51 for contact radiographs; and 0.69 for the microfocal-spot-magnified radiographs. We conclude that when evaluating microcalcifications, radiologists without extensive experience in mammography should not substitute television-digitized and enhanced contact mammograms for microfocal-spot-magnified mammograms; rigorous clinical evaluation is needed before this system is accepted for clinical use.

Analysis of Variance↗