ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Radiation associated with breast imaging is a sensitive issue, particularly for women who undergo mammography as a screening measure to detect breast cancer. Misinformation and misunderstanding regarding the risks associated with ionizing radiation have created heightened public concern and fear, which may result in avoidance of diagnostic procedures. The objectives of this study were to ascertain patients' knowledge and opinion of ionizing radiation as a whole and specifically in mammography, as well as to determine common misunderstandings and points of view that may affect women's decisions about whether to have a mammogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a 9-month period, a total of 1725 patients presenting for a mammogram completed a 25-point questionnaire focused on the following: general knowledge of radiation dose in common imaging modalities, the amount of radiation associated with a mammogram relative to five radiation benchmarks, and patients' opinions of the involvement of radiation in their health care. RESULTS: Although 65% of the women receiving a mammogram responded that they had been informed of the risks and benefits of the examination, 60% overestimated the radiation in a mammogram. CONCLUSION: Efforts should be made to accurately inform women of the risks and benefits of mammography, specifically highlighting the low dose of mammographic ionizing radiation and providing objective facts to ensure that they are making an informed decision regarding screening.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Mammography , Radiation Dosage , Adult , Breast Neoplasms, Male/diagnostic imaging , Cross-Sectional Studies , Educational Status , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Patient Education as Topic , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
This article addresses the essential components of the clinical image evaluation process for mammography examinations. The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program has specified 8 categories of image evaluation that are addressed in this article. While focused on the 2-view screening examination, the same general principles should apply to diagnostic mammograms. This article specifically focuses on the clinical image evaluation process as it applies to digital mammography.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/methods , Mammography/methods , Radiographic Image Enhancement/methods , Breast Neoplasms/prevention & control , Contrast Media , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Early Detection of Cancer/trends , Female , Forecasting , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Mammography/trends , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/trends , Radiation Dosage , Risk Assessment , Software , Subtraction Technique , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , United StatesABSTRACT
Digital detectors in mammography have wide dynamic range in addition to the benefit of decoupled acquisition and display. How wide the dynamic range is and how it compares to film-screen systems in the clinical x-ray exposure domain are unclear. In this work, we compare the effective dynamic ranges of film-screen and flat panel mammography systems, along with the dynamic ranges of their component image receptors in the clinical x-ray exposure domain. An ACR mammography phantom was imaged using variable mAs (exposure) values for both systems. The dynamic range of the contrast-limited film-screen system was defined as that ratio of mAs (exposure) values for a 26 kVp Mo/Mo (HVL=0.34 mm Al) beam that yielded passing phantom scores. The same approach was done for the noise-limited digital system. Data from three independent observers delineated a useful phantom background optical density range of 1.27 to 2.63, which corresponded to a dynamic range of 2.3 +/- 0.53. The digital system had a dynamic range of 9.9 +/- 1.8, which was wider than the film-screen system (p<0.02). The dynamic range of the film-screen system was limited by the dynamic range of the film. The digital detector, on the other hand, had an estimated dynamic range of 42, which was wider than the dynamic range of the digital system in its entirety by a factor of 4. The generator/tube combination was the limiting factor in determining the digital system's dynamic range.
Subject(s)
Mammography/instrumentation , X-Rays , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Equipment Design , Humans , Models, Statistical , Motion Pictures , Phantoms, Imaging , Radiographic Image Enhancement , Radiometry , X-Ray Intensifying ScreensABSTRACT
MRI has been used increasingly in the recent past for the guidance and monitoring of minimally invasive interventional procedures, using typically radiofrequency (RF) and laser energy, cryoablation, and percutaneous ethanol. RF energy has been used over the last 30 years for the ablation of tissues. Its use in conjunction with MRI for monitoring is limited, however, because of the electronic noise produced by the RF generators, which can significantly deteriorate image quality. The objective of this work was to devise methods by which this noise can be reduced to an acceptable level to allow simultaneous acquisition of MR images for monitoring purposes with the application of RF energy. Three different methods of noise reduction were investigated in a 0.2 T MR scanner: filtration using external hardware circuitry, MR scanner software-controlled filtration, and keyholing. The last two methods were unable by themselves to suppress the noise to an acceptable degree. Hardware filtration, however, provides excellent suppression of RF noise and is able to withstand up to 12 W of RF energy. When all the three approaches are combined, significant reduction of RF noise is achieved. The feasibility of creating an RF lesion of about 1.2 cm diameter in vivo in a porcine model simultaneously with temperature-sensitive MRI with adequate noise suppression is demonstrated.
