Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography
With the advent of digital mammography with electronic zoom capabilities, we have sought to determine the need for geometric magnification for the evaluation of clusters of microcalcifications. Eighty-eight clusters of microcalcifications were reviewed by two experienced radiologists using electroni...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal de radiologie 2010-09, Vol.91 (9 Pt 1), p.879-883 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | fre |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 883 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 Pt 1 |
| container_start_page | 879 |
| container_title | Journal de radiologie |
| container_volume | 91 |
| creator | Moraux-Wallyn, M Chaveron, C Bachelle, F Taieb, S Ceugnart, L |
| description | With the advent of digital mammography with electronic zoom capabilities, we have sought to determine the need for geometric magnification for the evaluation of clusters of microcalcifications.
Eighty-eight clusters of microcalcifications were reviewed by two experienced radiologists using electronic zoom (ZOOM) and geometric magnification (MAG). The following criteria were evaluated: image quality, shape and number of microcalcifications, size and shape of the clusters. The clusters were classified based on malignancy risk using the BI-RADS criteria. Histological results from macrobiopsy or surgery as well as 2 year follow-up were used as reference for statistical analysis.
Sensitivity (100% for MAG and 90% for ZOOM), specificity (52% versus 39%), positive predictive value (51% versus 44%) and negative predictive value (100% versus 88%) were superior for geometric magnification compared to electronic zoom irrespective of the reviewer but without reaching statistical significance. However, image quality was significantly superior with geometric magnification (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0221-0363(10)70129-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_754013840</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>754013840</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p140t-1a04d05ef7a0431d6737aa984bf30d91d79bfa260dff9e15b3d68afc66177a673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kLtOxDAQRV2A2GXhE0DpgCIwjpM4KdGKl7QSBVBHEz-CURwH2xEsX08QC9VcHZ17iyHkhMIlBVpePUGW0RRYyc4pXHCgWZ2yPbL8xwtyGMIbQEZpnh-QRQYVzRkvluRz7eyI3gQ3JK2KH0oNieqViN4NRiRfztkEB5l0ylkV_YwsdoPRRmA0c8fpRPRTiMqHn2yN8E5gL_6NGQ-JNJ2J2M9da13ncXzdHpF9jX1Qx7u7Ii-3N8_r-3TzePewvt6kI80hphQhl1AozefAqCw544h1lbeagayp5HWrMStBal0rWrRMlhVqUZaUc5ztFTn73R29e59UiI01Qai-x0G5KTS8yIGyKofZPN2ZU2uVbEZvLPpt8_cs9g3O-W3q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>754013840</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Moraux-Wallyn, M ; Chaveron, C ; Bachelle, F ; Taieb, S ; Ceugnart, L</creator><creatorcontrib>Moraux-Wallyn, M ; Chaveron, C ; Bachelle, F ; Taieb, S ; Ceugnart, L</creatorcontrib><description>With the advent of digital mammography with electronic zoom capabilities, we have sought to determine the need for geometric magnification for the evaluation of clusters of microcalcifications.
Eighty-eight clusters of microcalcifications were reviewed by two experienced radiologists using electronic zoom (ZOOM) and geometric magnification (MAG). The following criteria were evaluated: image quality, shape and number of microcalcifications, size and shape of the clusters. The clusters were classified based on malignancy risk using the BI-RADS criteria. Histological results from macrobiopsy or surgery as well as 2 year follow-up were used as reference for statistical analysis.
Sensitivity (100% for MAG and 90% for ZOOM), specificity (52% versus 39%), positive predictive value (51% versus 44%) and negative predictive value (100% versus 88%) were superior for geometric magnification compared to electronic zoom irrespective of the reviewer but without reaching statistical significance. However, image quality was significantly superior with geometric magnification (p<<0.05). In addition, reviewers were more confident in their interpretation of geometric magnification images.
Geometric magnification remains necessary in routine clinical practice for the characterization of microcalcifications and BI-RADS classification.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0221-0363</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0221-0363(10)70129-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20814375</identifier><language>fre</language><publisher>France</publisher><subject>Biopsy ; Breast - pathology ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Calcinosis - diagnostic imaging ; Calcinosis - pathology ; Calcinosis - surgery ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Mammography - methods ; Observer Variation ; Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods ; Radiographic Magnification - methods ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Software</subject><ispartof>Journal de radiologie, 2010-09, Vol.91 (9 Pt 1), p.879-883</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20814375$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moraux-Wallyn, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaveron, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bachelle, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taieb, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceugnart, L</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography</title><title>Journal de radiologie</title><addtitle>J Radiol</addtitle><description>With the advent of digital mammography with electronic zoom capabilities, we have sought to determine the need for geometric magnification for the evaluation of clusters of microcalcifications.
Eighty-eight clusters of microcalcifications were reviewed by two experienced radiologists using electronic zoom (ZOOM) and geometric magnification (MAG). The following criteria were evaluated: image quality, shape and number of microcalcifications, size and shape of the clusters. The clusters were classified based on malignancy risk using the BI-RADS criteria. Histological results from macrobiopsy or surgery as well as 2 year follow-up were used as reference for statistical analysis.
Sensitivity (100% for MAG and 90% for ZOOM), specificity (52% versus 39%), positive predictive value (51% versus 44%) and negative predictive value (100% versus 88%) were superior for geometric magnification compared to electronic zoom irrespective of the reviewer but without reaching statistical significance. However, image quality was significantly superior with geometric magnification (p<<0.05). In addition, reviewers were more confident in their interpretation of geometric magnification images.
Geometric magnification remains necessary in routine clinical practice for the characterization of microcalcifications and BI-RADS classification.</description><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Breast - pathology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Calcinosis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Calcinosis - pathology</subject><subject>Calcinosis - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods</subject><subject>Radiographic Magnification - methods</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Software</subject><issn>0221-0363</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kLtOxDAQRV2A2GXhE0DpgCIwjpM4KdGKl7QSBVBHEz-CURwH2xEsX08QC9VcHZ17iyHkhMIlBVpePUGW0RRYyc4pXHCgWZ2yPbL8xwtyGMIbQEZpnh-QRQYVzRkvluRz7eyI3gQ3JK2KH0oNieqViN4NRiRfztkEB5l0ylkV_YwsdoPRRmA0c8fpRPRTiMqHn2yN8E5gL_6NGQ-JNJ2J2M9da13ncXzdHpF9jX1Qx7u7Ii-3N8_r-3TzePewvt6kI80hphQhl1AozefAqCw544h1lbeagayp5HWrMStBal0rWrRMlhVqUZaUc5ztFTn73R29e59UiI01Qai-x0G5KTS8yIGyKofZPN2ZU2uVbEZvLPpt8_cs9g3O-W3q</recordid><startdate>201009</startdate><enddate>201009</enddate><creator>Moraux-Wallyn, M</creator><creator>Chaveron, C</creator><creator>Bachelle, F</creator><creator>Taieb, S</creator><creator>Ceugnart, L</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201009</creationdate><title>Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography</title><author>Moraux-Wallyn, M ; Chaveron, C ; Bachelle, F ; Taieb, S ; Ceugnart, L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p140t-1a04d05ef7a0431d6737aa984bf30d91d79bfa260dff9e15b3d68afc66177a673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>fre</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Breast - pathology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Calcinosis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Calcinosis - pathology</topic><topic>Calcinosis - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods</topic><topic>Radiographic Magnification - methods</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Software</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moraux-Wallyn, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaveron, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bachelle, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taieb, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceugnart, L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal de radiologie</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moraux-Wallyn, M</au><au>Chaveron, C</au><au>Bachelle, F</au><au>Taieb, S</au><au>Ceugnart, L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography</atitle><jtitle>Journal de radiologie</jtitle><addtitle>J Radiol</addtitle><date>2010-09</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>9 Pt 1</issue><spage>879</spage><epage>883</epage><pages>879-883</pages><issn>0221-0363</issn><abstract>With the advent of digital mammography with electronic zoom capabilities, we have sought to determine the need for geometric magnification for the evaluation of clusters of microcalcifications.
Eighty-eight clusters of microcalcifications were reviewed by two experienced radiologists using electronic zoom (ZOOM) and geometric magnification (MAG). The following criteria were evaluated: image quality, shape and number of microcalcifications, size and shape of the clusters. The clusters were classified based on malignancy risk using the BI-RADS criteria. Histological results from macrobiopsy or surgery as well as 2 year follow-up were used as reference for statistical analysis.
Sensitivity (100% for MAG and 90% for ZOOM), specificity (52% versus 39%), positive predictive value (51% versus 44%) and negative predictive value (100% versus 88%) were superior for geometric magnification compared to electronic zoom irrespective of the reviewer but without reaching statistical significance. However, image quality was significantly superior with geometric magnification (p<<0.05). In addition, reviewers were more confident in their interpretation of geometric magnification images.
Geometric magnification remains necessary in routine clinical practice for the characterization of microcalcifications and BI-RADS classification.</abstract><cop>France</cop><pmid>20814375</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0221-0363(10)70129-3</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0221-0363 |
| ispartof | Journal de radiologie, 2010-09, Vol.91 (9 Pt 1), p.879-883 |
| issn | 0221-0363 |
| language | fre |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_754013840 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Biopsy Breast - pathology Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - pathology Breast Neoplasms - surgery Calcinosis - diagnostic imaging Calcinosis - pathology Calcinosis - surgery Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Image Processing, Computer-Assisted Mammography - methods Observer Variation Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods Radiographic Magnification - methods Sensitivity and Specificity Software |
| title | Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T08%3A10%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20between%20electronic%20zoom%20and%20geometric%20magnification%20of%20clusters%20of%20microcalcifications%20on%20digital%20mammography&rft.jtitle=Journal%20de%20radiologie&rft.au=Moraux-Wallyn,%20M&rft.date=2010-09&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=9%20Pt%201&rft.spage=879&rft.epage=883&rft.pages=879-883&rft.issn=0221-0363&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0221-0363(10)70129-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E754013840%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=754013840&rft_id=info:pmid/20814375&rfr_iscdi=true |