Literature DB >> 16532956

Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images.

I Reiser1, R M Nishikawa, M L Giger, T Wu, E A Rafferty, R Moore, D B Kopans.   

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has recently emerged as a new and promising three-dimensional modality in breast imaging. In DBT, the breast volume is reconstructed from 11 projection images, taken at source angles equally spaced over an arc of 50 degrees. Reconstruction algorithms for this modality are not fully optimized yet. Because computerized lesion detection in the reconstructed breast volume will be affected by the reconstruction technique, we are developing a novel mass detection algorithm that operates instead on the set of raw projection images. Mass detection is done in three stages. First, lesion candidates are obtained for each projection image separately, using a mass detection algorithm that was initially developed for screen-film mammography. Second, the locations of a lesion candidate are backprojected into the breast volume. In this feature volume, voxel intensities are a combined measure of detection frequency (e.g., the number of projections in which a given lesion candidate was detected), and a measure of the angular range over which a given lesion was detected. Third, features are extracted after reprojecting the three-dimensional (3-D) locations of lesion candidates into projection images. Features are combined using linear discriminant analysis. The database used to test the algorithm consisted of 21 mass cases (13 malignant, 8 benign) and 15 cases without mass lesions. Based on this database, the algorithm yielded a sensitivity of 90% at 1.5 false positives per breast volume. Algorithm performance is positively biased because this dataset was used for development, training, and testing, and because the number of algorithm parameters was approximately the same as the number.of patient cases. Our results indicate that computerized mass detection in the sequence of projection images for DBT may be effective despite the higher noise level in those images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16532956     DOI: 10.1118/1.2163390

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


  32 in total

1.  Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: a 3D approach.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Jun Wei; Chuan Zhou; Yao Lu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Automated detection of mass lesions in dedicated breast CT: a preliminary study.

Authors:  I Reiser; R M Nishikawa; M L Giger; J M Boone; K K Lindfors; K Yang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Characterization of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of machine learning in projection views and reconstructed slices.

Authors:  Heang-Ping Chan; Yi-Ta Wu; Berkman Sahiner; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie; Yiheng Zhang; Richard H Moore; Daniel B Kopans; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Ted Way
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Spatial localization accuracy of radiologists in free-response studies: Inferring perceptual FROC curves from mark-rating data.

Authors:  Dev Chakraborty; Hong-Jun Yoon; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Thick slices from tomosynthesis data sets: phantom study for the evaluation of different algorithms.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Henning Meyer; Susanne Diekmann; Sylvie Puong; Serge Muller; Ulrich Bick; Patrik Rogalla
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-07-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Anniversary paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger; Heang-Ping Chan; John Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Alicia Toledano; Cosimo di Maggio; Enrica Baldan; Elisabetta Bezzon; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Aida Toffoli; Pier Carlo Muzzio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Transfer Learning From Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Diagnosis: A Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Kayla Mendel; Hui Li; Deepa Sheth; Maryellen Giger
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.