BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
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 Moritz, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Grabbe, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moritz, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Grabbe, E.

The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 70, Issue 839 1099-1103, Copyright © 1997 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

A comparison of conventional mammographic magnification, ultra high magnification and industrial magnification radiography in the radiographic detection of microcalcifications within core biopsies of the breast

JD Moritz, S Luftner-Nagel, JP Westerhof, JW Oestmann and E Grabbe
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Klinikum der Georg-August-Universitat, Gottingen, Germany.

The objective was to compare conventional magnification radiography (CMR), ultra high magnification radiography (UHMR) and industrial magnification radiography (IMR) in the detection of microcalcifications in breast core biopsies. 440 core biopsies were examined in 1.8-fold CMR and in 7-fold UHMR using a prototype unit. A subgroup of 59 core biopsies were also examined in 10-fold IMR. Number, size, and demarcation of microcalcifications, as well as tissue contrast, were evaluated. Only 67% of the microcalcifications seen with UHMR were detected by CMR and 78% of the core biopsies showing calcifications in UHMR were calcified in CMR. Only 38% and 58% of microcalcifications verified by IMR were identified by CMR and UHMR, respectively. 47% and 63% of the core biopsies showing calcifications in IMR were calcified in CMR and UHMR, respectively. Tissue contrast of IMR was superior to both other modalities. On the other hand, increased cost and time will probably prohibit the use of IMR for specimen radiography in routine clinical examinations. In conclusion, UHMR identifies substantially more core biopsies with microcalcifications than CMR, thus potentially reducing the number of core biopsies needed for histological analysis. IMR allowed the detection of approximately 50%/160% more microcalcifications than UHMR/CMR, thus rendering it the reference mode.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1997 by the British Institute of Radiology.