Ms. Kahee Jung Profile

Kahee Jung

at Seoul National Univ. Hospital

SPIE Involvement:

Author

Publications (2)

Proceedings Article | 16 March 2020 Paper

Preliminary data on TruviewMAG to assess the visibility of microcalcifications and image quality of mammograms: comparison with the standard magnification view

Soo-Yeon Kim, Wontaek Seo, Ann Yi, Su Hyun Lee, Su Min Ha, Eun Sil Kim, Kahee Jung, Yong Ju Na, Mijung Jo, Choul Woo Shin, Jung Min Chang

Proceedings Volume 11312, 113125D (2020) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2549259

KEYWORDS: Mammography, Image quality standards, Visibility, Image quality, Biopsy, Digital mammography, Breast, Image segmentation, Standards development, Spatial resolution

Read Abstract +

Purpose: To compare the visibility of microcalcifications and image quality of specimen mammograms obtained with the digital magnification algorithm(TruviewMAG) view and standard magnification view

Materials and Methods: Nineteen women (median age, 49 years; ranges, 38-71 years) who underwent stereotactic biopsy or ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy for suspicious microcalcifications detected at mammography were prospectively enrolled. After biopsy, specimen mammograms were obtained to confirm the removal of microcalcifications. A pair of specimen mammogram were obtained with both TruviewMAG view (DRTECH Corp., Seongnam, Korea) and standard magnification view. Four blinded readers independently evaluated visibility of microcalcifications, contrast and resolution of specimen mammograms using a 10-point scale (1, poor; 10, excellent), and preference. In addition to specimen mammograms, we performed pilot clinical test to evaluate the visibility of microcalcifications in two patients.

Results: The visibility of microcalcifications on specimen mammograms obtained with TruviewMAG view was comparable to those obtained with standard magnification view in overall reading (mean, 8.2±1.8 vs. 8.1±1.4, P = .893). The contrast of specimen mammograms obtained with TruviewMAG view was comparable to those obtained with standard magnification view in overall reading (mean, 7.8±1.6 vs. 7.8±1.4, P = .827). The resolution of specimen mammograms obtained with TruviewMAG view was comparable to those obtained with standard magnification view in overall reading (mean, 7.7±1.7 vs. 7.5±1.3, P = .173). Four readers preferred TruviewMAG view and standard magnification view at equal rates. The mean entrance surface dose for TruviewMAG view was 2.88mGy, which was 58.3% reduction compared to 4.94 mGy in standard magnification view. The visibility of microcalcifications were similar in two patients (one with benign fibrocytic change, and the other with invasive ductal carcinoma)

Conclusion: The visibility of microcalcifications and image quality of the specimen mammograms obtained with TruviewMAG view was comparable with those obtained with standard magnification view. In clinical patients data, microcalcifications were well visualized on TruviewMAG view, even though prospective study with larger study population is needed to confirm our finding.

Proceedings Article | 1 March 2019 Paper

Comparison of digital mammograms obtained with the cassette-type retrofit mammography flat panel detector installed on an analog system and the conventional full-field digital mammography

Wontaek Seo, Su Hyun Lee, Kahee Jung, Mijung Jo, Hyeonran Lee, Choul Woo Shin, Jung Min Chang

Proceedings Volume 10948, 109485X (2019) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2512709

KEYWORDS: Mammography, Digital mammography, Image quality, Breast, Visibility, Image quality standards, Digital imaging, Analog electronics, Sensors, Breast cancer

Read Abstract +

View contact details

UPDATE YOUR PROFILE

Is this your profile? Update it now.

Sign into your SPIE.org account

Don’t have a profile and want one?

Create an account on SPIE.org

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years