PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10477093

Full field digital mammography scanner.

Abstract

We describe the key features of a pre-production, slot-scan digital mammography system. A number of these units have been used in clinical studies over the past year for the purpose of demonstrating their equivalence to the conventional film-screen devices. Since the clinical data has not yet been fully analyzed, it is not possible to make definitive claims. However, with hundreds of patients examined, the results appear to leave very little doubt the SenoScan digital mammography system will prove equivalent to the conventional technology. The detector developed for this system has a sensitive area 1.0 cm wide by 22 cm long. It is constructed by abutting four charge-coupled-device (CCD) chips, which are optically coupled to thallium-doped cesium iodide scintillator by means of a thin fiber optic plate. Scanning is accomplished by attaching the detector to a rigid arm that swings in an arc, with the axis of rotation collinear with the X-ray tube focal spot. The total scan time for the 30 cm image width is less than 6 s, with an effective exposure time of either 0.2 or 0.4 s. Two resolution modes are available: 0.054 mm or 0.027 mm square pixel size; in the latter mode both the image length and width are halved, as is the scan velocity, so that the scan time remains the same. To compensate for the low X-ray utilization efficiency of the slot geometry, a tungsten rhenium target X-ray tube is employed. It is rated at 8 kW on the 0.3 mm focal spot; when used with a heat exchanger, it has been found to provide the patient throughput needed in a busy clinical practice.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M M Tesic, M F Piccaro, B Munier. 1999. Full field digital mammography scanner.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0720-048x(99)00064-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparison of 4 MV photon surface dose among Varian, Siemens, and Elekta linear accelerators for tangential breast treatment: a phantom study.

PURPOSE: We have compared the differences in a 4-MV photon surface dose among Varian, Siemens, and Elekta linear accelerators (linacs) with wedges for tangential breast treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The wedge factor and the surface dose were measured using a solid water phantom and an ion chamber for each linear accelerator with various field sizes and wedge angles. A tangential treatment plan was applied to an elliptical hollow cylinder water phantom with a radiochromic film placed thereon. A dose was delivered to a simulated target in the phantom, and the resulting dose distribution was analyzed using a film scanner. RESULTS: Varian's wedges resulted in the highest wedge factors, ranging from 0.37 to 0.75 depending on the wedge angles. Varian's wedges led to the highest normalized skin doses, ranging between 0.40 and 0.73 depending on the wedge angles and field sizes. In the cylinder phantom test with two tangential beams, the Varian linac provided a nearly 20% higher maximum dose than the Siemens and Elekta linacs. CONCLUSION: The Varian linac resulted in the highest surface doses, and the Elekta linac led to the lowest for nearly all the measurement conditions we employed, including open beams.

Breast Diseases↗

[Is the application of CAD useful for radiologists for passing the official tests required for outpatient breast imaging?].

PURPOSE: To analyze whether currently available CAD systems meet the diagnostic requirements for passing screening tests (first reader CAD) and to analyze whether the additional usage of CAD systems provides significant support for the diagnosing radiologist on the basis of official screening test cases (second reading by CAD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 200 images of 100 mammographies of 50 patients of an official screening test case collection were analyzed double-blind with and without CAD printouts (iCAD, USA ) by three radiologists: one experienced in breast analysis and CAD application, one experienced in mammography analysis but inexperienced in CAD usage, one with minimal experience with breast analysis and CAD application. All radiologists measured the largest diameter of any malignant mass. The mean value of these calculations was correlated to the largest diameter given by CAD prompts. RESULTS: The mean sensitivity and specificity increased slightly as a result of the additional usage of CAD (1 and 0.6 %, resp.). Both values are not statistically significant. The highest effect was measured for the radiologist with CAD experience, while no effect was measured for the inexperienced radiologist. CAD met the sensitivity requirements but not the specificity criteria (96 and 20.3 %, resp.). The sizes given by CAD prompts corresponded significantly with the real sizes (r = 0.45, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A statistically significant effect of the use of CAD could not been detected dependent on the radiological experience or the CAD experience. The effect of CAD on radiologists is still subtle despite the highly sensitive CAD performance due to the high number of false positive prompts and thus does not reach statistical significance. Sizes given by CAD prompts correlate significantly with the real sizes of malignant lesions.

Breast Diseases↗