Abstract
Using Fuji computerised radiography and a General Electric PACS our unit now reports soft copy mammography images. These are available for reporting on three monitors, a Pathspeed Diagnostic 2A workstation with two monitors each with 1728 × 2304 pixel resolution, a Pathspeed Diagnostic 2B with two monitors each with 1200 × 1600 pixel resolution and an image review workstation (IRW), which constitutes a Dell PC with a 17 flat panel LCD screen with 1024 × 768 pixel resolution. Mammography reporting has traditionally been felt to require the best possible resolution. This study has been designed to show whether or not this is necessary. We have evaluated standard mammography phantom images (TORMAS and TORMAM) and a set of 50 mammograms with known calcification to determine the resolution required for reporting CR mammography. This has implications for other units interested in computerised radiography as the costs of the three reporting workstations range from £1,000 to £41,000.
Highlights
Histological analysis of core biopsy of breast lesions takes a minimum of 24 h, but imprint cytology of a core biopsy can be reported within an hour
A total of 450,425 women were screened by BreastScreen Western Australia (BSWA) from January 1990 to December 2000. 2,314 cancers were detected with a total cancer detection rate of 5.1 cancers per 1,000 women screened. 4,916 women of ATSI origin were screened during this interval. 31 breast cancers were diagnosed, with a total cancer detection rate of 6.3 cancers per 1,000 women screened
These lesions may mimic the microcalcifications of ductal carcinoma in situ at screening mammography
Summary
Histological analysis of core biopsy of breast lesions takes a minimum of 24 h, but imprint cytology of a core biopsy can be reported within an hour. This study validates the accuracy of imprint cytology from core biopsy of breast lesions obtained under ultrasound control. Full field digital mammography (FFDM) seems set to replace conventional film-screen technique. Concern has been raised over FFDM diminished spatial resolution (5–6 Ip/mm). If valid, this could compromise detection of calcification and diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In our centre we were not able to perceive any difference between microfocus magnification and on-screen magnification when assessing microcalcification. We subsequently compared these results with average scores for over 90 film-screen mammography systems
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
