MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty mammography patients above 40 years and undergoing EIT were chosen using convenient sampling. Visual interpretation of the images was carried out by a radiologist with minimum of three years experience using the breast imaging - electrical impedance (BI-EIM) classification for detection of abnormalities. A set of thirty blinded EIT images were reinterpreted to determine the intra-rater reliability using kappa. Quantitative assessment was by comparison of the breast average electric conductivity with the norm and correlations with visual interpretation of the images were determined using Chi-square. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean electrical conductivity between groups and t-test was used for comparisons with pre-existing Caucasians statistics. Independent t-tests were applied to compare the mean electrical conductivity of women with factors like exogenous hormone use and family history of breast cancer.
RESULTS: The mean electrical conductivity of Malaysian women was significantly lower than that of Caucasians (p<0.05). Quantitative assessment of electrical impedance tomography was significantly related with visual interpretation of images of the breast (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative assessment of electrical impedance tomography images was significantly related with visual interpretation.
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.