AIMS: The objective of this study was to compare the image quality for DSPM and FFDM using a grading scale based on previously published articles.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This comparative diagnostic study was done for 5-month duration at the Breast Clinic. The system used was the Lorad Selenia FFDM system and the Mammomat 3000 Nova DSPM system. The craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections were done on both breast on 58 asymptomatic women using both DSPM and FFDM. The mammograms were evaluated for eight criteria of image quality: Tissue coverage, compression, exposure, contrast, resolution, noise, artifact, and sharpness by two independent radiologists.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and Weighted Kappa.
RESULTS: FFDM was rated significantly better (P < 0.05) for five aspects: Tissue coverage, compression, contrast, exposure, and resolution and equal to DSPM for sharpness, noise, and artifact.
CONCLUSION: FFDM was superior in five aspects and equal to DSPM for three aspects of image quality.
DESIGN: Single-centre prospective two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Orthodontic Clinic, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult orthodontic patients aged 18-35 years, indicated for DPT and LC, who were fit and healthy with a body mass index of 18.5-25.0, not contraindicated to radiographic examination, not pregnant, and did not have a history of facial or skeletal abnormalities or bone diseases were included.
METHODS: Thirty-eight adult orthodontic patients were randomised into control and intervention groups. DPT and LC radiographs in the control group were obtained using standard scanning parameters as prescribed by the manufacturer using Orthopantomograph® OP300 by Instrumentarium. Scanning parameters in the intervention group were reduced by 60% for DPT (60 kV, 3.2 mA) and 30% for LC (85 kV, 8 mA). A five-point rating scale was used for the assessment of image quality. Images were evaluated for diagnostic performance by detection of anatomical landmarks. Mann-Whitney test was performed to compare the quality and diagnostic performance of the images and the observer agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: For image quality, the control group produced slightly lower median scores (DPT 2.0, LC 2.0) compared to the intervention group (DPT 2.0, LC 3.0). For diagnostic performance, both groups showed similar median scores (DPT 21.0, LC 32.0). The differences between control and intervention groups for both modalities were not statistically significant. The average scores for intra-observer agreement were excellent (ICC 0.917) and inter-observer agreement was good (ICC 0.822).
CONCLUSION: Minimising radiation exposure by reducing scanning parameters on digital DPT by 60% and LC by 30% on Intsrumentarium 300 OP did not affect the quality and diagnostic performance of the images. Thus, scanning parameters on digital DPT and LC should be reduced when taking radiographs.
METHODS: From February 2014 to January 2015, 214 patients underwent DM and DBT, acquired with a Siemens Mammomat Inspiration unit. 2 expert readers independently reviewed the studies in 2 steps: DM and DM+DBT, according to BI-RADS rate. Patients with BI-RADS 0, 3, 4, and 5 were recalled for work-up. Inter-reader agreement for BI-RADS rate and work-up rate were evaluated using Cohen's kappa.
RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement (κ value) for BI-RADS classification was 0.58 for DM and 0.8 for DM+DBT. DM+DBT increased the number of BI-RADS 1, 2, 4, 5 and reduced the number of BI-RADS 0 and 3 for both readers compared to DM alone. Regarding work-up rate agreement, κ was poor for DM and substantial (0.7) for DM+DBT. DM+DBT also reduced the work-up rate for both Reader 1 and Reader 2.
CONCLUSION: DM+DBT increased the number of negative and benign cases (BI-RADS 1 and 2) and suspicious and malignant cases (BI-RADS 4 and 5), while it reduced the number of BI-RADS 0 and 3. DM+DBT also improved inter-reader agreement and reduced the overall recall for additional imaging or short-interval follow-up.