Skip to main content
Log in

Phosphor plate mammography: contrast studies and clinical experience

  • Original Articles
  • Breast Imaging
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mammography and accurate microcalcification detection require very good spatial resolution. We have compared the diagnostic capabilities of reduced-exposure, third-generation, 5 cycles/mm computed radiography (CR) phosphor plates with conventional screen-film in 67 patients. No difference in diagnostic accuracy was detected. The digital characteristics of storage phosphor plates erabled us to study the relationship between contrast and spatial resolution. We developed a computer program to identify a single 100 μm pixel in a digital image and assign various gray levels to that pixel. Using this model, we determined that, for our 5 cycles/mm CR system, the imaged contrast of a 100 μm object was 62% of the original contrast. Current 5 cycles/mm phosphor plate systems cannot adequately detect microcalcifications that approximate 100 μm or smaller unless a magnification technique is used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Roe D, Orr J (1987) Mammographic dual-screen-emulsion film combination: visibility of simulated microcalcifications and effect on image contrast. Radiology 165: 313

    Google Scholar 

  2. Stanton L, Day JL, Villafana T, Miller CH, Lightfoot DA (1987) Screen-film mammographic technique for breast cancer screen. Radiology 163: 4719

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sickles EA (1986) Breast calcifications: mammographic evaluation. Radiology 160: 289

    Google Scholar 

  4. Smathers RL, Bush E, Drace J, Stevens M, Sommer FG, et al. (1986) Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display. Radiology 159: 673

    Google Scholar 

  5. Oestmann JW, Kopans DB, Linetsky L, Hall DA, McCarthy KA, et al. (1988) Comparison of two screen-film combinations in contact and magnification mammography: detectability of microcalcifications. Radiology 168: 657

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fandos-Morera A, Prats-Estere M, Tura-Soteras JM, Traveria-Cros A (1988) Breast tumors: composition of microcalcifications. Radiology 169: 325

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yaffe MJ (1990) Physics of mammography: image recording process. Stephen Balter, AAPM Tutorial. Radiographics 10: 341

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sonoda M, Takano M, Miyabara J, Kato H (1983) Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser-stimulated luminescence. Radiology 148: 833

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blume H (1987) Stimulable phosphor systems — technical aspects. In: Peppler WW, Alter A (eds) Proceedings of chest imaging conference '87. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 194–207

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fujita H, Ueda K, Junji M, Rujikawa T, Ohtsoka A, Sai T (1989) Basic imaging properties of a computed radiographic system with photostimulable phosphors. Med Phys 16: 52

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tateno Y, Iinuma T, Takano M (1987) Computed radiography. Springer, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blume H, Kamiya K (1987) Auto-ranging and normalization versus histogram modifications for automatic image processing of digital radiographs. Proc SPIE Medical Imaging 767: 371

    Google Scholar 

  13. Murphey MD (1989) Digital skeletal radiography: spatial resolution requirements for detection of subperiosteal resorption. Am J Roentgenol 152: 541

    Google Scholar 

  14. Murphey MD, Bramble JM, Cook LT, et al. (1990) Nondisplaced fractures: spatial resolution requirements for detection with digital skeletal imaging. Radiology 174: 865

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cox GG, Cook LT, McMillan JH, et al. (1990) Chest radiography: comparison of high-resolution digital displays with conventional and digital film. Radiology 176: 771

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Gormley L (1989) Digital mammography a comparison of two digitization methods. Invest Radiol 24: 869

    Google Scholar 

  17. Metz CE (1986) ROC methodology in radiology imaging. Invest Radiol 21: 720

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Correspondence to: C. H. J. Chang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, C.H.J., Martin, N.L., Templeton, A.W. et al. Phosphor plate mammography: contrast studies and clinical experience. Eur. Radiol. 2, 483–487 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00176358

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00176358

Key words

Navigation