Ultrasonic B-scan images of the pancreatic parenchyma in normal and cystic fibrosis patients were numerically analyzed. Images of both the maximum and minimum echoes from the tissue were generated by a recently-developed digital ultrasound system. Complete segregation of the two groups was achieved by averaging the echo amplitude over a selected region in the image. The dependence of the numerical values on the B-scan imaging mode, transducer properties, dynamic range compression curve, and operator scanning technique is discussed in depth.
LinzerM.ParksS. I., The SonoChromascope, in Proc. IFIP TC-4 Working Conference on Computer Aided Tomography and Ultrasonics in Medicine, RavivJ.GreenleafJ. F.HermanG. T., eds., pp. 73–76 (North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1979); Linzer, M., Parks, S. I., Norton, S. J., Higgins, F. P., Dietz, D. R., Shideler, R. W., Shawker, T. H., and Doppman, J. L., A Comprehensive Ultrasonic Tissue Analysis System, in Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization II, M. Linzer, ed., pp. 255-260, National Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 525 (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1979).
2.
Pho/Sonic SM B-scanner, Searle Ultrasound, Santa Clara, CA.
3.
Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institutes of Health or the National Bureau of Standards, nor does it imply that the material or equipment identified is necessarily the best available for the purpose.
4.
MaginnessM. G., Methods and terminology for diagnostic ultrasound imaging systems, Proc. IEEE67, 641–653 (1979).
5.
Radiation Measurements, Inc., Middleton, WI.
6.
LinzerM., ed., Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization, National Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 453 (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1976).
7.
LinzerM., ed., Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization II, National Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 525 (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1979).
8.
MountfordR. A.WellsP. N. T., Ultrasonic liver scanning: the A-scan in the normal and cirrhosis, Phys. Med. Biol. 17, 261–269 (1972).
9.
TaylorK. J. W.MilanJ., Diffential diagnosis of chronic splenomegaly: clinical observations and digital A-scan analysis, Brit. J. Radiology49, 519–525 (1976).
10.
FieldsS.DunnF., Correlation of echographic visualizability of tissue with biological composition and physiological state, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 54, 809–812 (1973).
11.
FieldsS. I., Ultrasound mammographic-histopathologic correlation, Ultrasonic Imaging (to be published).
12.
RobbinsS. L., Textbook of Pathology, p. 377 (W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 1962).
13.
EdmondsP. D.ReyesZ.ParkinsonD. B.FillyR. A.BuseyH., A Human Abdominal Tissue Phantom, in Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization II, National Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 525, LinzerM., ed., pp. 323–326 (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1979).
14.
EggletonR. C.WhitecombJ. A., Tissue Simulators for Diagnostic Ultrasound, in Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization II, National Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 525, LinzerM., ed., pp. 327–340 (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1979).
15.
BurckhardtC. B., Speckle in ultrasound B-mode scans, IEEE Trans. Sonics and Ultrasonics SU-25, 1–6 (1978).
16.
AbbottJ. G.ThurstoneF. L., Acoustic speckle: theory and experimental analysis, Ultrasonic Imaging1, 303–324 (1979).
17.
BirnholzJ., Ultrasound Evaluation of Diffuse Liver Disease, in Clinics and Diagnostic Ultrasound, Vol. 1: Diagnostic Ultrasound in Gastrointestinal Disease, TaylorK. J. W., ed., pp. 23–33 (Churchill Livingstone, Inc., New York, NY, 1979).
