Literature DB >> 10847395

An investigation of the effects of mammographic acquisition parameters on a semiautomated quantitative measure of breast cancer risk.

N J Hangiandreou1, C J Mount, K R Brandt, J P Quam, A Manduca, C M Vachon, T A Sellers.   

Abstract

The aim of this work was to investigate the effect of mammographic acquisition parameter variations on the estimation of percent density (PD) produced by a particular semiautomated algorithm. The PD algorithm requires the user to specify a threshold pixel value segmenting breast tissue of greater and lesser density. A whole breast specimen was imaged using a variety of acquisition techniques, and the image data were processed as prescribed by the PD algorithm. PD estimates for all possible values of the user threshold were calculated for all the images. The image data were normalized so that PD varied between 30% and 80% over a fixed threshold range of 23, and a PD value of 50% was obtained for a threshold value of 195. PD differences between all the images and a baseline standard mammographic acquisition technique were calculated. We also estimated PD differences caused by small (3%) variations in operator selection of the threshold value. We found that the largest differences in PD involved changes in the density control of the mammography unit, and changes in the detector (either film type or computed radiography). The maximum PD differences due to technique were all less than 10%, with root-mean-square (RMS) variations less than 4%. PD differences due to operator variation were 24% (maximum) and 6.1% (RMS). These findings suggest that PD differences due to mammographic technique will be considerably less than those inherent to the technique, due to operator variation. All of these estimates are likely larger than differences seen in practice since optimization of the threshold by the operator was not considered in this analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10847395      PMCID: PMC3453258          DOI: 10.1007/bf03167657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  5 in total

1.  The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.

Authors:  J W Byng; N F Boyd; E Fishell; R A Jong; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Mammographic parenchymal patterns and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a case-control study.

Authors:  J N Wolfe; A F Saftlas; M Salane
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  A F Saftlas; R N Hoover; L A Brinton; M Szklo; D R Olson; M Salane; J N Wolfe
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Diet, mammographic features of breast tissue, and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  J Brisson; R Verreault; A S Morrison; S Tennina; F Meyer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study.

Authors:  N F Boyd; J W Byng; R A Jong; E K Fishell; L E Little; A B Miller; G A Lockwood; D L Tritchler; M J Yaffe
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1995-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.