全数字乳腺X线3种摄影模式的影像质量和辐射剂量比较

目的 探讨全数字乳腺X线摄影(FFDM)不同摄影模式影像质量与辐射剂量的比较研究.方法 用全数字乳腺X线摄影的对比度优先模式(CNT)、标准模式(STD)及辐射剂量优先模式(DOSE)对FLUKE NA 18-220乳腺模体进行摄影,摄影采用自动曝光模式(AEC),记录摄影条件和辐射剂量.由4位影像学医师在相同条件下进行软阅读,并按照美国放射学会(ACR)的评分标准对模体中的钙化点、尼龙纤维、肿块灶进行评分.结果 标准模式、辐射剂量优先模式及对比度优先模式的模体影像评分值分别是11.5、11.0和14.5,标准模式及辐射剂量优先模式与对比度优先模式的影像质量差异有统计学意义(F=41.321,P＜0.05).标准模式与辐射剂量优先模式之间影像质量差异无统计学意义,但两种模式的辐射剂量却不相同,其表面入射剂量分别是4.5和3.15 mGy,腺体平均剂量(AGD)分别是1.18和0.78 mGy.结论 全数字乳腺摄影的辐射剂量优先模式和标准模式适合大多数被检者,特别是辐射剂量优先模式.对比度优先模式应严格控制使用.

Abstract：

Objective To study the difference of image quality and radiation dose between different exposure modes with full-field digital mammography (FFDM).Methods The Fluke18-220mammographic phantom was exposed by FFDM system with different exposure modes at automatic exposure control ( AEC ) ,including contrast mode,standard mode and dose mode,and the exposure factors and radiation dose were recorded.The images on monitor with the best window width and window level were read by four independent radiologists.The images of specks groups,nylon fibers and masses was assessed by the four experienced readers at the criterion of American College of Radiology.Results The detection of specks groups,nylon fibers and masses were statistically different at the contrast mode and standard mode (F =41.321,P ＜ 0.05),further at the contrast mode and dose mode.The detection of specks groups、nylon fibers and masses were not statistically different( P ＞ 0.05 ) at standard mode and dose mode,but the radiation doses were different.The ESD at standard mode and dose mode was 4.5 and 3.15 mGy,respectively.The AGD of standard mode and dose mode was 1.18 mGy and 0.78 mGy,respectively.Conclusions The standard mode and dose mode of FFDM might be fit for most patients,especially at the dose mode.Contrast mode of FFDM should be strictly controled in use.     

乳腺计算机X射线摄影自动曝光模式的校正

目的 通过参照乳腺屏-片系统摄影自动曝光控制模式,对乳腺CR摄影自动曝光进行校正,从而实现影像质量与辐射剂量的最优化。方法 应用屏-片组合,28 kV条件下,对40 mm厚的有机玻璃进行自动曝光,以此所得曝光量(mAs)为基准,分10档分别采用±10 mAs的曝光量用CR进行曝光,选取LgM=2.0的曝光量作为基准,对CR的自动曝光模式进行校正。采用经校正后的CR自动曝光模式,分别采用26、28和30 kV对Fluke NA 18-220 乳腺模体进行摄影,模体采用自动曝光控制(AEC)模式进行摄影,记录曝光量数值(mAs),对CR影像进行处理。同时CR采用相同的kV和照射野及不同的曝光量对模体进行摄影,CR影像经后处理后请4位放射医师进行双盲阅片,按照美国放射学会(ACR)的评分标准评价打分。结果 采用稍高于传统屏-片组合的曝光量作为CR自动曝光校正基准值,可实现乳腺CR摄影自动曝光模式的校正,经校正后模体测试影像的评分均高于ACR的评分标准。结论 乳腺CR摄影自动曝光模式可根据CR特点进行校正,经校正后的乳腺CR摄影的自动曝光控制模式应用于临床既可明显降低病人辐射剂量,又可得到满足临床诊断需求的优质乳腺影像。     

乳腺计算机X射线摄影自动曝光模式的校正

目的 通过参照乳腺屏一片系统摄影自动曝光控制模式,对乳腺CR摄影自动曝光进行校正,从而实现影像质量与辐射剂量的最优化.方法 应用屏-片组合,28 kV条件下,对40 mm厚的有机玻璃进行自动曝光,以此所得曝光量(mAs)为基准,分10档分别采用±10 mAs的曝光量用CR进行曝光,选取LgM=2.0的曝光量作为基准,对CR的自动曝光模式进行校正.采用经校正后的CR自动曝光模式,分别采用26、28和30 kV对Fluke NA 18-220乳腺模体进行摄影,模体采用自动曝光控制(AEC)模式进行摄影,记录曝光量数值(mAs),对CR影像进行处理.同时CR采用相同的kV和照射野及不同的曝光量对模体进行摄影.CR影像经后处理后请4位放射医师进行双盲阅片,按照美国放射学会(ACR)的评分标准评价打分.结果 采用稍高于传统屏-片组合的曝光量作为cR自动曝光校正基准值,可实现乳腺CR摄影自动曝光模式的校正,经校正后模体测试影像的评分均高于ACR的评分标准.结论 乳腺CR摄影自动曝光模式可根据CR特点进行校正,经校正后的乳腺CR摄影的自动曝光控制模式应用于临床既町明显降低病人辐射剂量,又可得到满足临床诊断需求的优质乳腺影像.     

乳腺计算机X射线摄影自动曝光模式的校正

目的 通过参照乳腺屏一片系统摄影自动曝光控制模式,对乳腺CR摄影自动曝光进行校正,从而实现影像质量与辐射剂量的最优化.方法 应用屏-片组合,28 kV条件下,对40 mm厚的有机玻璃进行自动曝光,以此所得曝光量(mAs)为基准,分10档分别采用±10 mAs的曝光量用CR进行曝光,选取LgM=2.0的曝光量作为基准,对CR的自动曝光模式进行校正.采用经校正后的CR自动曝光模式,分别采用26、28和30 kV对Fluke NA 18-220乳腺模体进行摄影,模体采用自动曝光控制(AEC)模式进行摄影,记录曝光量数值(mAs),对CR影像进行处理.同时CR采用相同的kV和照射野及不同的曝光量对模体进行摄影.CR影像经后处理后请4位放射医师进行双盲阅片,按照美国放射学会(ACR)的评分标准评价打分.结果 采用稍高于传统屏-片组合的曝光量作为cR自动曝光校正基准值,可实现乳腺CR摄影自动曝光模式的校正,经校正后模体测试影像的评分均高于ACR的评分标准.结论 乳腺CR摄影自动曝光模式可根据CR特点进行校正,经校正后的乳腺CR摄影的自动曝光控制模式应用于临床既町明显降低病人辐射剂量,又可得到满足临床诊断需求的优质乳腺影像.     

乳腺计算机X射线摄影曝光条件的研究

目的通过比较乳腺摄影屏-片系统与计算机X射线摄影(CR)系统的曝光条件,以及不同曝光量对乳腺CR影像的影响,探讨乳腺CR摄影条件的优化原则。方法应用屏-片组合和CR,分别采用26、28、30 kV对fluke NA 18-220 乳腺模体采用自动曝光控制(AEC)模式进行摄影,并记录曝光量数值(mAs),对CR影像进行处理。同时CR采用上述相同kV、照射野,以及不同的曝光量对模体进行摄影,并对CR影像进行不同的处理。所获图像由4位放射医师进行双盲阅片,按照美国放射学会(ACR)的评分标准评价打分。结果采用自动曝光模式,乳腺CR摄影的曝光量明显高于传统屏-片组合的曝光量;乳腺CR摄影的曝光量降低到标准自动曝光模式的1/2~1/3时仍能满足诊断要求,此时的曝光量较屏-片组合采用自动曝光模式的曝光量低。结论乳腺CR摄影采用不经重新校正的自动曝光模式时,曝光量明显增加;符合诊断要求的乳腺CR摄影所需曝光量可低于屏-片组合,合理使用CR是降低乳腺CR摄影剂量的关键。     

数字乳腺X线摄影中管电流量与影像质量的关系

目的探讨数字乳腺X线摄影中不同乳腺压迫厚度时管电流量与影像质量的关系。方法全数字乳腺摄影机中采用钼-铑靶滤过组合,对2~7 cm厚度的CDMAM模体选择适宜的管电压,不同管电流量下,进行手动曝光,参数(压迫厚度、管电压、管电流量)设定分别为2 cm、27 kVp、10~90 mAs,3 cm、29 kVp、20~120 mAs,4 cm、29 kVp、20~200 mAs,5 cm、30 kVp、40~220 mAs,6 cm、31 kVp、40~260 mAs和7 cm、32 kVp、80~280 mAs,计算图像影像质量因子(IQF)、对比噪声比(CNR),记录平均腺体剂量(AGD)。通过计算品质因子(FOM),找出各种厚度下最优管电流量及对应的AGD。根据2~7 cm压迫厚度下优化参数表和机器在各种厚度下自动曝光特性,列出2~7 cm厚度下自动曝光参数调整表。同时对不同厚度下IQF、CNR和AGD进行Pearson相关分析,对CNR和管电流量进行曲线拟合。结果在钼-铑靶滤过组合下,不同压迫厚度时,随着管电流量增加,AGD线性增加,FOM先增加后下降或平缓变化。AGD和CNR在2~7 cm厚度下均呈高度正相关,r值均>0.97,P均<0.01。AGD和IQF在2~6 cm时呈高度正相关,r值均>0.87,P均<0.01。参考IQF和FOM因子,不同压迫厚度下,管电压和管电流量适宜匹配参数分别为2 cm、27 kVp、20~30 mAs,3 cm、29 kVp、30~50 mAs,4 cm、29 kVp、80~100 mAs,5 cm、30 kVp、80~120 mAs,6 cm、31 kVp、100~140 mAs,7 cm、32 kVp、80~120 mAs。压迫厚度-自动曝光档的设置对应关系为2 cm-1档、3 cm-2档、4 cm-3档、5 cm-2档、6 cm-0档、7 cm--1档。结论不同乳腺压迫厚度下,具有适宜的管电流量范围,临床实践中应选择相应的自动曝光条件。     

全数字乳腺摄影系统与双面阅读CR乳腺摄影系统的比较

目的 对比研究全数字乳腺摄影系统(FFDM)与双面阅读CR乳腺摄影成像系统(DSCRM)辐射剂量与成像质量的关系.方法 在相同的辐射剂量下用FFDM和DSCRM对ALVIM统计学乳腺摄影模体TRM进行曝光,记录摄影条件和模体表面入射剂量,然后固定此摄影条件kV值,选用不同mAs值用DSCRM对模体进行曝光,记录表面入射剂量,并将所获取的影像在图像诊断工作站显示器上由3位放射学专家进行视读打分,按照5分值判断法评判,绘制ROC曲线,计算出每种信号的判断概率值Pdet,对所得数据进行统计学分析.结果 在辐射剂量为1.36 mGy时,FFDM所摄取模体影像内容物中不同直径钙化点和肿块灶的Pdet值分别是0.730 ～0.925和0.670～0.945,DSCRM所得模体影像内容物中不同直径钙化点和肿块灶的Pdet值分别是0.632～0.815和0.575～0.785.二者在1.35 mm肿块灶和0.40 mm钙化点用双因素方差分析(ANOVA)进行处理,(F=37.1,P＜0.05).在相同的判断概率值Pdet下,DSCRM所用表面入射剂量为1.63 mGy,腺体平均剂量为0.65 mGy,FFDM所用的表面入射剂量为1.36 mGy,腺体平均剂量为0.56 mGy,FFDM较DSCRM表面入射剂量减少了19.8％,腺体平均剂量减少16.0％.结论 在相同曝光条件下,FFDM对模体内容物的检出率高于DSCRM;在获得相似图像质量时,FFDM的辐射剂量明显低于DSCRM.     

两种数字乳腺X射线摄影系统的比较

目的探讨比较全视野数字乳腺X射线摄影系统(FFDM)与计算机乳腺X射线摄影系统(CRM)在影像质量与辐射剂量方面的差异。方法用FFDM对ALVIM乳腺摄影体模TRM进行自动曝光控制(AEC)摄影,再用CRM专用成像板(IP)在同一摄影机上用相同条件对体模摄影。固定AEC摄影时的kV值,选用曝光量数值14、16、18、22和24 mAs,在FFDM机上对模体摄影,记录上述摄影条件和入射皮肤剂量(ESD)及平均腺体剂量(AGD)。由5位影像科资深医师分别在相同条件下对所得影像进行软阅读,按照5分值判断法评判,然后绘制受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)曲线,计算出每种信号的判断概率值(P_det),对所得数据进行统计学分析。结果在辐射剂量均为1.36 mGy时,FFDM对模体内钙化点和肿块灶P_det值比CRM高,尤其是微小钙化点和小肿块灶,微小钙化点最大差值为0.215,小肿块灶最大差值为0.245。在相同的P_det值下,FFDM的辐射剂量比CRM低,ESD的值降低了26%,腺体平均剂量降低了41%。在使用FFDM摄影时,当mAs值超过AEC值时,P_det值没有明显改变。结论在相同曝光条件下,FFDM对乳腺钙化点和肿块灶的检出率高于CRM;在获得相似图像质量时,FFDM的辐射剂量明显低于CRM。     

不同曝光模式对数字乳腺X线摄影影像质量和辐射剂量的影响

目的探讨数字乳腺X线摄影中不同曝光模式对影像质量及辐射剂量的影响,便于实际工作中在保证影像质量的前提下,通过对曝光模式及曝光条件选择有效降低病人的辐射损伤。方法先采用自动曝光模式(28kV、60mAs)对乳腺模体进行曝光,然后采用相同的压迫厚度和压力,根据自动曝光模式的摄影条件,在手动曝光模式下,分别固定管电压和管电流量,依次改变相应的管电流量及管电压对模体进行曝光,记录各曝光条件下入射剂量(ESD)、平均腺体剂量(AGD)和美国放射学会(ACR)标准的影像评分值。采用SPSS17.0软件中KruskalWallis检验对自动和手动曝光模式产生的各值进行统计学处理。结果手动曝光模式下,当管电压固定为28kV,管电流量由60mAs升至70mAs时,ESD和AGD分别增加了15.4%;当管电流量降至45mAs时,ESD和AGD分别降低了26.1%。当管电流量固定为60mAs,管电压由28kV升至32kV时,ESD和AGD分别增加了47.0%和62.7%;当管电压降至26kV时,ESD和AGD分别降低了22.6%和28.2%。不同曝光模式下影像的整体质量均无明显差别(P>0.05)。结论自动曝光模式下所得到的ESD与AGD均不是最低剂量。以自动曝光模式为基础,分别固定管电压或管电流量,在一定范围内分别手动降低管电流量或管电压值,在不影响影像质量的前提下,可降低辐射剂量。同时,影像质量达到一定水平后,不再随摄影条件增加而提高。     

全数字化乳腺X线摄影对乳腺炎性疾病的诊断价值

目的:分析乳腺炎性疾病的全数字化乳腺X线摄影(FFDM)表现,提高该病与乳腺癌的鉴别诊断水平。方法:回顾性分析39例经穿刺或手术病理证实的乳腺炎性疾病的FFDM表现。结果:39例患者中,26例为慢性乳腺炎,5例为浆细胞性乳腺炎,8例为肉芽肿性乳腺炎。X线表现为肿块影17例,局部腺体非对称性致密影20例,结构扭曲2例。伴同侧腋下淋巴结致密影7例,局部或乳晕区皮肤增厚12例,乳头凹陷7例。结论:结合临床资料并细致分析乳腺炎性疾病的FFDM表现,有助于提高该病诊断与鉴别诊断水平。     

Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography

The goal of this prospective study was to compare a full-field digital mammography system (FFDM) to a conventional screen-film mammography system (SFM) for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Fifty-five patients with 57 isolated microcalcification clusters were examined using a FFDM system (Senographe 2000D, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.) and a SFM system (Senographe DMR, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.). A conventional screen-film mammogram and a digital contact mammogram were obtained of each cluster. The image quality and the number of calcification particles were evaluated, and a characterization (BI-RADS 1–5) of microcalcifications was given by four experienced readers. Histopathology revealed 16 benign lesions (sclerosing adenosis, dysplasia, hamartoma, radial scar) in 15 patients and 21 malignant tumors (in situ carcinoma, invasive carcinoma) in 20 patients. Twenty patients had benign changes verified by long-term follow-up. Image quality of FFDM was assessed as superior to SFM in more than 50% of the cases. The FFDM showed more calcifications in 41% of all cases. Sensitivity and specificity for FFDM vs SFM were 95.2 vs 91.9% and 41.4 vs 39.3%, respectively. Moreover, FFDM demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy (deviation: 0.86 BI-RADS steps) compared with FSM (deviation 0.93 BI-RADS steps). The FFDM system with a 100-μm pixel size provides better image quality than SFM in patients with mammographic microcalcifications. The FFDM has a higher sensitivity and a higher reliability in characterizing microcalcifications. Electronic Publication     

Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality,detectability and characterization of lesions

The objective of this study was to compare screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) regarding image quality as well as detectability and characterization of lesions using equivalent images of the same patient acquired with both systems. Two mammography units were used, one with a screen-film system (Senographe DMR) and the other with a digital detector (Senographe 2000D, both GEMS). Screen-film and digital mammograms were performed on 55 patients with cytologically or histologically proven tumors on the same day. Together with these, 75 digital mammograms of patients without tumor and the corresponding previous screen-film mammograms not older than 1.5 years were reviewed by three observers in a random order. Contrast, exposure, and the presence of artifacts were evaluated. Different details, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and the parenchymal structures, were judged according to a three-point ranking scale. Finally, the detectability of microcalcifications and lesions were compared and correlated to histology. Image contrast was judged to be good in 76%, satisfactory in 20%, and unsatisfactory in 4% of screen-film mammograms. Digital mammograms were judged to be good in 99% and unsatisfactory in 1% of cases. Improper exposure of screen-film system occurred in 18% (10% overexposed and 8% underexposed). Digital mammograms were improperly exposed in 4% of all cases but were of acceptable quality after post-processing. Artifacts, most of them of no significance, were found in 78% of screen-film and in none of the digital mammograms. Different anatomical regions, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and dense parenchymal areas, were better visualized in digital than in screen-film mammography. All malignant tumors were seen by the three radiologists; however, digital mammograms allowed a better characterization of these lesions to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS;) [corrected] categories (FFDM better than SFM in 23 of 165 vs 9 of 165 judged cases in SFM). In conclusion, digital mammography offers a consistent, high image quality in combination with a better contrast and without artifacts. Lesion detection in digital images was equal to that in screen-film images; however, categorization of the lesions to the BI-RADS classification was slightly better.     

全野数字乳腺X线摄影降低辐射剂量的初步研究

＿目的：探讨全野数字乳腺X线摄影的曝光条件,找出影响图像质量和平均腺体剂量（AGD）的因素,为乳腺摄影提供参考。方法：采用GE全野数字乳腺X线机对fluke NA 18-220乳腺模体进行摄影,首先采用AOP 模式下的标准模式曝光,压力设定为12daN,厚度为42 mm,结果形成28 kV,45 mAs,Mo／Rh 曝光条件,以此为参照基准,设定两组实验：以管电流为单变量,设值为8～90 mAs（间隔为机器旋钮可调节的数值）;以管电压为单变量,设值为22～36 kV（间隔为1）,曝光并记录AGD值。上述过程重复3次取平均值。2位影像学医师和1位技师分别独立进行软阅读,参照美国放射学会评分标准,对模体中钙化点、尼龙纤维、肿块灶的显示进行评分。结果：与自动曝光模式相比,手动曝光模式管电压下降3 kV,管电流下降20 mAs,影像质量符合诊断标准,辐射剂量有效下降。管电压的变化对 AGD 的影响比管电流要大。结论：以自动条件作为参照标准,在保障图像诊断质量前提下,管电压和管电流可分别有效降低,以减少辐射。     

全数字化乳腺摄影与MRI对乳腺恶性病变诊断的对比分析

目的 探讨乳腺癌全数字化乳腺摄影(full-field digital mammography,FFDM)与乳腺MRI的影像学表现,评价其对乳腺癌的诊断价值.方法 收集68例经穿刺或手术病理证实的乳腺癌病例,对比分析其X线摄影及MRI表现.全数字化乳腺摄影采用常规方法摄片,MRI采用自旋回波T1WI,T2WI序列及动态增强扫描等.结果 68例乳腺恶性肿瘤中,浸润性导管癌57例,浸润性小叶癌3例,叶状囊肉瘤1例,血管肉瘤1例,导管内癌2例,炎性乳癌2例,印戒细胞癌1例,Paget's病1例.乳腺X线摄影诊断正确61例,诊断准确率89.7％.MRI诊断正确66例,诊断准确率97.1％.结论 乳腺X线摄影是乳腺恶性病变的首选检查方法,MRI能更多的显示乳腺病灶的内部特征,二者联合应用对乳腺癌的临床诊断具有重要意义.     

Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography

Now, full field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in diagnosis of breast cancer. With the development of FFDM, the radiation dose delivered to the patients involved in an imaging protocol is of utmost concern. Here, we analyzed the average glandular dose (AGD) and entrance surface exposure (ESE) of 1397 patients (6008 images) who underwent mammographic examinations by FFDM in three modes with automatic optimization of parameters (AOP), namely STD for standard mode, CNT for contrast mode and DOSE for dose mode. In addition, exposure factors including kVp, tube loading (mAs), and target/filter combination were evaluated. As a result, the patient dose was sorted as CNT>STD>DOSE. The dose difference among the three AOP modes was mainly attributed to the selection of mAs. The AGD and breast compressed thickness were well correlated in STD and DOSE modes. However, the correlation between CNT-delivered AGD and breast compressed thickness was dependent on the range of the breast thickness and patient age. The findings on dose and exposure characteristics of the three AOP modes get useful message of patient dose in the acquisition of FFDM.     

Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading is more complex than screen-film mammography (SFM) with hard-copy reading. The aim of this study was to compare inter- and intraobserver variability in SFM versus FFDM of paired mammograms from a breast cancer screening program. Six radiologists interpreted mammograms of 232 cases obtained with both techniques, including 46 cancers, 88 benign lesions, and 98 normals. Image interpretation included BI-RADS categories. A case consisted of standard two-view mammograms of one breast. Images were scored in two sessions separated by 5 weeks. Observer variability was substantial for SFM as well as for FFDM, but overall there was no significant difference between the observer variability at SFM and FFDM. Mean kappa values were lower, indicating less agreement, for microcalcifications compared with masses. The lower observer agreement for microcalcifications, and especially the low intraobserver concordance between the two imaging techniques for three readers, was noticeable. The level of observer agreement might be an indicator of radiologist performance and could confound studies designed to separate diagnostic differences between the two imaging techniques. The results of our study confirm the need for proper training for radiologists starting FFDM with soft-copy reading in breast cancer screening. Presented at ECR, Wien 2006.