AJR Customized AJR reprints in quantities as low as 100!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kimme-Smith, C
Right arrow Articles by Morioka, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kimme-Smith, C
Right arrow Articles by Morioka, C
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 153, Issue 5, 963-967
Copyright © 1989 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

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

C Kimme-Smith, RH Gold, LW Bassett, L Gormley, and C Morioka

Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine 90024-1721.

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.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.