Does residual ultrasound transmission gel affect the diagnostic ability of mammography?
Artifact
Mammography
Ultrasound transmission gel
Journal
Radiological physics and technology
ISSN: 1865-0341
Titre abrégé: Radiol Phys Technol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101467995
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
19
03
2022
accepted:
13
06
2022
revised:
12
06
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
30
8
2022
entrez:
5
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to assess whether residual ultrasound transmission gel (USTG) caused artifacts in mammography using a model 156 mammographic accreditation phantom and step phantom. Moreover, pig tissues with structures similar to those of the breast were imaged to assess whether USTG on the tissue appeared as a shadow on the mammogram, and how these shadows may be interpreted in clinical practice. The results showed that the visualization scores obtained for phantom mammograms decreased significantly for the fiber and mass samples after the application of USTG. Moreover, USTG on the tissues affected the visual evaluation of mammograms, leading to misinterpretation of mammographic findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35781775
doi: 10.1007/s12194-022-00662-6
pii: 10.1007/s12194-022-00662-6
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gels
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
245-248Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics.
Références
Mesurolle B, Ceccarelli J, Karp I, Sun S, El-Khoury M. Effects of antiperspirant aluminum percent composition and mode of application on mock microcalcifications in mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:279–82.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.10.015
Japan Radiological Society Japanese Society of Radiological Technology. Mammography guideline. 4th ed. Tokyo: Igaku Shoin; 2021. p. 105–10.
Belavy D, Sunn N, Lau Q, Robertson T. Absence of neurotoxicity with perineural injection of ultrasound gels: assessment using an animal model. BMC Anesthesiol. 2013;13:18.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2253-13-18
Sato M, Sato R. Psychological changes over the course of one year post-surgery in breast cancer patients who received breast conservative therapy. Chiba Kangogakkaikaishi. 2002;8:47–54.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT, Sebuødegård S, Østerås BH, Gullien R, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the oslo tomosynthesis screening trial. Radiology. 2019;291:23–30.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182394
Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ, Ellis IO, Cornford E. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1377–80.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0725
Yersal O, Barutca S. Biological subtypes of breast cancer: prognostic and therapeutic implications. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5:412.
doi: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i3.412