乳腺X线摄影中微钙化灶在软阅读技术中显示度的研究

发布时间：2018-07-03 00:09

本文选题：显示器 + 分辨率　；参考：《复旦大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：第一部分 3M和5M显示器对不同分辨率乳腺体模图影像显示质量的研究目的：比较高、低分辨率乳腺机获得的专用模体的测试结果,评估3M与5M医用专业显示器对乳腺影像显示质量的影响。方法：高(70um)、低(100um)分辨率乳腺机分别拍摄乳腺专用对比度细节检测模体(CDMAM3.4),获得高、低分辨率乳腺模体图。由4名放射诊断医师和2名技师在标准及放大显示模式下,评估两种显示器所能显示的最小圆盘的直径(Di)与厚度(Ci,th),并计算出影像质量因子(IQFinv)。两种显示器及两种显示模式的比较均采用配对t-检验。结果：(1)在使用低分辨率乳腺影像数据时,无论是标准显示模式,还是放大显示模式,两种显示器的影像细节显示能力基本相仿(P0.05)。(2)在使用高分辨率乳腺影像数据时,在标准显示模式下,5M显示器可识别最小直径(0.130±0.000mm)小于3M显示器(0.155±0.012mm),P=0.004。5M显示器的IQFinv值明显高于3M显示器(P=0.036)。在放大显示模式下,3M与5M显示器的可识别最小直径相同(0.125±0.012mm),5M显示器的IQFinv值高于3M显示器,但差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。(3)无论哪种分辨率图像与显示器的组合,在放大模式下阅片的影像质量均优于标准模式(P=0.010)。结论：高分辨率数据配备5M显示器可获得高质量图像,利用阅读时的放大模式在一定程度上可以改善3M显示器对各种细节的显示。第二部分 3M和5M显示器对不同分辨率乳腺影像图中微钙化检出的研究目的：通过使用高(70u m)、低(100μ m)两种分辨率的乳腺影像数据来比较3M与5M医用专业显示器对乳腺微钙化病变识读的影响。方法：选择高、低两种分辨率的乳腺影像数据各100例(微钙化病例40例,正常对照病例60例)。由1名高年资和1名低年资放射科医师评估两种显示器对乳腺微钙化的显示率,识别效能用ROC曲线判断,并使用Kappa分析检验两名医生的判读一致性。结果：(1)在低分辨率数据组中,两名医生在3M与5M医用专业显示器上对微钙化的识别基本相同(P=0.451及0.559)。而在高分辨率70μm组中,高年资医生在5M医用专业显示器对乳腺微钙化的识别率明显高于3M(P=0.022),低年资医生的识别率差异不大(P=0.141)。(2)两名医生在5M显示器上判读的符合率都好于3M显示器。尤其是高分辨率探测器组与5M的匹配,两名医生的判读有极好的一致性(K=0.862)。结论：高分辨率乳腺影像配套5M显示器更利于微钙化的检出。第三部分 3M和5M显示器对不同分辨率乳腺影像图中微钙化诊断的研究目的：通过使用高、低两种分辨率的乳腺影像图来比较3M与5M医用专业显示器对乳腺微钙化病变诊断效能的影响。方法：选择高、低两种分辨率的乳腺影像各60例(病理证实为癌的30例,乳腺病伴钙盐沉积30例)。由1名高年资和1名低年资放射科医师评估两种显示器对乳腺微钙化病灶的检出率,并判断其恶性可能性,检出率采用卡方检验,恶性可能性采用方差分析。结果：(1)微钙化检出率方面：在低分辨率影像图组中,两名医生对乳腺微钙化的检出率差异没有统计学意义(P0.05)；而在高分辨率影像图组中,高年资医生使用5M医用专业显示器对乳腺微钙化的检出率明显高于3M(100%vs90%,P=0.027),低年资医生的识别率无显著差异(98.3%vs93.3%,P=0.364)。(2)在微钙化恶性可能性的判读上：无论哪组数据,在5M显示器上,两名医生对微钙化恶性可能性的判读结果均要优于3M显示器,但差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。两名医生之间的Az值比较也无统计学差异。结论：高分辨率乳腺影像配套5M显示器更利于微钙化的检出,但对于已经检出的钙化病灶性质判断上,在5M和3M显示器上的判读并无明显不同。
[Abstract]:Part one
Display quality of breast and phantom images with different resolutions by 3M and 5M displays
Objective: To compare the test results of high and low resolution mammography specific models, and to evaluate the influence of 3M and 5M medical professional displays on the quality of mammography display.
Methods: high (70UM), low (100um) resolution mammography was used to capture specific breast contrast details (CDMAM3.4) for high and low resolution mammography. The diameter of the minimum disk (Di) and thickness (Ci, th) was evaluated by 4 radiologists and 2 technicians in the standard and magnifying display mode. The image quality factor (IQFinv) was calculated and the paired t- test was used to compare the two kinds of display and two display modes.
Results: (1) when using low resolution mammography data, both standard display mode and magnifying display mode, the image details of the two displays are basically similar (P0.05). (2) the 5M display can identify the minimum diameter (0.130 + 0.000mm) less than 3M in the standard display mode when using high resolution breast image data. The display (0.155 + 0.012mm), the IQFinv value of the P=0.004.5M display is obviously higher than the 3M display (P=0.036). In the magnified display mode, the identifiable minimum diameter of the 3M and the 5M display is the same (0.125 + 0.012mm), the IQFinv value of the 5M display is higher than that of the 3M display, but the difference has no systematic significance (P0.05). (3) no matter which resolution image and display In combination, the image quality in the enlarged mode is better than that in the standard mode (P=0.010).
Conclusion: high resolution data equipped with 5M display can obtain high quality images. The amplification mode in reading can improve the display of 3M display to various details to a certain extent.
The second part
Detection of microcalcifications in breast images with different resolutions by 3M and 5M displays
Objective: To compare the effects of 3M and 5M medical professional displays on breast microcalcification by using 70u m and low (100 u m) two resolution mammography data.
Methods: 100 cases (40 cases of microcalcification and 60 cases of normal control) were selected with high and low two resolutions. 1 high year and 1 low annual radiologists evaluated the display rate of breast microcalcification by two displays. The recognition efficiency was judged by ROC curve, and Kappa analysis was used to test the interpretation of two doctors. Sex.
Results: (1) in the low resolution data group, two doctors identified the microcalcification on 3M and 5M medical professional displays (P=0.451 and 0.559). In the high resolution 70 m group, the recognition rate of the breast microcalcification by the senior doctors in the 5M medical professional display was higher than 3M (P=0.022), and the difference of recognition rate of the low year doctors was not different. (P=0.141). (2) two doctors judged the coincidence rate on the 5M display better than the 3M display. In particular, the high resolution detector group matched with the 5M, and the two doctor's interpretation had excellent consistency (K=0.862).
Conclusion: the 5M display with high resolution mammography is more conducive to the detection of microcalcification.
The third part
Diagnosis of micro calcification in breast images with different resolutions by 3M and 5M displays
Objective: To compare the diagnostic efficiency of 3M and 5M medical professional monitors on breast microcalcification by using high and low two mammograms.
Methods: 60 cases of breast images with high and low two kinds of resolution (30 cases of cancer confirmed by pathology, 30 cases of breast disease with calcium salt) were selected. The detection rate of the breast microcalcification focus was evaluated by 1 high year and 1 low year radiologists, and the malignant possibility was judged by two kinds of display, and the detection rate was examined by chi square test and malignant possibility. Analysis of variance.
Results: (1) the detection rate of microcalcification: in the low resolution image group, there was no significant difference in the detection rate of mammary microcalcification by two doctors (P0.05). In the high resolution image group, the detection rate of the breast microcalcification by 5M medical professional monitor was significantly higher than that of 3M (100%vs90%, P=0.027). There was no significant difference (98.3%vs93.3%, P=0.364). (2) in the judgement of the malignant possibility of microcalcification, no matter which group of data, on the 5M display, two doctors were better than 3M displays on the malignant possibility of microcalcification, but the difference was not statistically significant (P0.05). The Az value between two doctors was not unified. Study differences.
Conclusion: the 5M display with high resolution breast image is more beneficial to the detection of microcalcification, but there is no significant difference between 5M and 3M displays on the detection of the nature of the detected calcification lesions.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：R737.9;R730.44

【相似文献】