Literature DB >> 12349926

Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).

Xiujiang J Rong1, Chris C Shaw, Dennis A Johnston, Michael R Lemacks, Xinming Liu, Gary J Whitman, Mark J Dryden, Tanya W Stephens, Stephen K Thompson, Kerry T Krugh, Chao-Jen Lai.   

Abstract

Amorphous silicon/cesium iodide (a-Si:H/CsI:Tl) flat-panel (FP)-based full-field digital mammography systems have recently become commercially available for clinical use. Some investigations on physical properties and imaging characteristics of these types of detectors have been conducted and reported. In this perception study, a phantom containing simulated microcalcifications (microCs) of various sizes was imaged with four detector systems: a FP system, a small field-of-view charge coupled device (CCD) system, a high resolution computed radiography (CR) system, and a conventional mammography screen/film (SF) system. The images were reviewed by mammographers as well as nonradiologist participants. Scores reflecting confidence ratings were given and recorded for each detection task. The results were used to determine the average confidence-rating scores for the four imaging systems. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was also performed to evaluate and compare the overall detection accuracy for the four detector systems. For calcifications of 125-140 microm in size, the FP system was found to have the best performance with the highest confidence-rating scores and the greatest detection accuracy (Az = 0.9) in the ROC analysis. The SF system was ranked second while the CCD system outperformed the CR system. The p values obtained by applying a Student t-test to the results of the ROC analysis indicate that the differences between any two systems are statistically significant (p<0.005). Differences in microC detectability for the large (150-160 microm) and small (112-125 microm) size microC groups showed a wider range of p values (not all p values are smaller than 0.005, ranging from 0.6 to <0.001) compared to the p values obtained for the medium (125-140 microm) size microC group. Using the p values to assess the statistical significance, the use of the average confidence-rating scores was not as significant as the use of the ROC analysis p value for p value.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12349926     DOI: 10.1118/1.1500768

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  13 in total

1.  Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 μm computed radiography compared with screen-film mammography in operative breast specimens.

Authors:  C M Pagliari; T Hoang; M Reddy; L S Wilkinson; J D Poloniecki; R M Given-Wilson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.

Authors:  Wei T Yang; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William A Murphy; Mark J Dryden; Anne C Kushwaha; Aysegul A Sahin; Dennis Johnston; Peter J Dempsey; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size.

Authors:  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Visibility of microcalcification in cone beam breast CT: effects of X-ray tube voltage and radiation dose.

Authors:  Chao-Jen Lai; Chris C Shaw; Lingyun Chen; Mustafa C Altunbas; Xinming Liu; Tao Han; Tianpeng Wang; Wei T Yang; Gary J Whitman; Shu-Ju Tu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Comparison of two detector systems for cone beam CT small animal imaging - a preliminary study.

Authors:  Yang Meng; Chris C Shaw; Xinming Liu; Mustafa C Altunbas; Tianpeng Wang; Lingyun Chen; Shu-Ju Tu; S Cheenu Kappadath; Chao-Jen Lai
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2006-03-02

6.  Comparison of slot scanning digital mammography system with full-field digital mammography system.

Authors:  Chao-Jen Lai; Chris C Shaw; William Geiser; Lingyun Chen; Elsa Arribas; Tanya Stephens; Paul L Davis; Geetha P Ayyar; Basak E Dogan; Victoria A Nguyen; Gary J Whitman; Wei T Yang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  A comparison study of image features between FFDM and film mammogram images.

Authors:  Hao Jing; Yongyi Yang; Miles N Wernick; Laura M Yarusso; Robert M Nishikawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of simulated microcalcifications on mammograms using hardcopy images.

Authors:  Chao-Jen Lai; Chris C Shaw; Gary J Whitman; Wei T Yang; Peter J Dempsey; Victoria Nguyen; Mary F Ice
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Volumetric CT with sparse detector arrays (and application to Si-strip photon counters).

Authors:  A Sisniega; W Zbijewski; J W Stayman; J Xu; K Taguchi; E Fredenberg; Mats Lundqvist; J H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Evaluation of breast calcifications.

Authors:  Yojana V Nalawade
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2009 Oct-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.