Abstract
This article compared the ability of four dedicated ultrasound breast scanners to display the texture, location, size, and shape of pseudoβtumors, cysts, dilated ducts, and microcalcifications in a breast phantom. Each instrument required adjustment to display the structures in the breast phantom because of the difference in acoustic impedance of the materials in the phantom versus tissue. Two Technicare instruments, one Life Imaging instrument, and a laboratory designed and constructed ultrasound breast scanner were used in this study. The laboratory instrument was able to visualize the targets with simple sector scanning. One Technicare instrument that could only perform simple sector scanning could only visualize a target just below the nipple, i.e., a dilated duct. The second Technicare instrument, which had a modified arc scan, could visualize all the targets except a 12.7βmm cyst, 9 cm posterior to the nipple. The Life Imaging unit could not detect the targets with sector scanning but could when compound scanning was used. Both Technicare and Life Imaging breast ultrasonoscopes produced a greater degree of artifact production and distortion of the textural properties of the phantom than the laboratory instrument. None of these instruments could unequivocally identify any of the microcalcifications, but this may be due to other minute loud echoβproducing structures within the phantom.