Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yersal O, Barutca S. Biological subtypes of breast cancer: prognostic and therapeutic implications. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5:412.
Acknowledgements
Special gratitude is given to Megumi Takeuchi, Haruko Takuwa, and Yuuki Nakamura for their continuous support and thoughtful guidance throughout this research. The author is also grateful to Mayuko Wada, Aoi Obata, Reika Matsuura, Yuriko Watahiki, and Chiharu Seto for their encouragement and support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required at our institution. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Kuwabara, N., Kawashima, H. Does residual ultrasound transmission gel affect the diagnostic ability of mammography?. Radiol Phys Technol 15, 245–248 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-022-00662-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-022-00662-6