Literature DB >> 16885614

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

Chao-Jen Lai1, Chris C Shaw, Gary J Whitman, Wei T Yang, Peter J Dempsey, Victoria Nguyen, Mary F Ice.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare mammography systems based on three different detectors--a conventional screen-film (SF) combination, an a-Si/CsI flat-panel (FP)-based detector, and a charge-coupled device (CCD)-based x-ray phosphor-based detector--for their performance in detecting simulated microcalcifications (MCs). 112-150 microm calcium carbonate grains were used to simulate MCs and were overlapped with a slab phantom of simulated 50% adipose/50% glandular breast tissue-equivalent material referred to as the uniform background. For the tissue structure background, 200-250 microm calcium carbonate grains were used and overlapped with an anthropomorphic breast phantom. All MC phantom images were acquired with and without magnification (1.8 X). The hardcopy images were reviewed by five mammographers. A five-point confidence level rating was used to score each detection task. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed, and the areas under the ROC curves (A(z)s) were used to compare the performances of the three mammography systems under various conditions. The results showed that, with a uniform background and contact images, the FP-based system performed significantly better than the SF and the CCD-based systems. For magnified images with a uniform background, the SF and the FP-based systems performed equally well and significantly better than the CCD-based system. With tissue structure background and contact images, the SF system performed significantly better than the FP and the CCD-based systems. With magnified images and a tissue structure background, the SF and the CCD-based systems performed equally well and significantly better than the FP-based system. In the detection of MCs in the fibroglandular and the heterogeneously dense regions, no significant differences were found except that the SF system performed significantly better than the CCD-based system in the fibroglandular regions for the contact images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16885614      PMCID: PMC1913688          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/16/002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  41 in total

1.  Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography.

Authors:  S Suryanarayanan; A Karellas; S Vedantham; S J Glick; C J D'Orsi; S P Baker; R L Webber
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 2.  Current status of full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  E D Pisano; M J Yaffe; B M Hemminger; R E Hendrick; L T Niklason; A D Maidment; C M Kimme-Smith; S A Feig; E A Sickles; M P Braeuning
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography.

Authors:  U Fischer; F Baum; S Obenauer; S Luftner-Nagel; D von Heyden; R Vosshenrich; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-19       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images.

Authors:  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Hetal Ved; Stephen P Baker; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Breast Cancer on Mammograms.

Authors: 
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  1997-12-25       Impact factor: 4.239

7.  Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography--a phantom study.

Authors:  M Funke; N Breiter; K P Hermann; J W Oestmann; E Grabbe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Visibility of microcalcifications in computed and screen-film mammography.

Authors:  A R Cowen; J H Launders; M Jadav; D S Brettle
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.

Authors:  S Obenauer; S Luftner-Nagel; D von Heyden; U Munzel; F Baum; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.

Authors:  Mari Yakabe; Shuji Sakai; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Yoshio Matsuo; Takeshi Kamitani; Taro Setoguchi; Mayumi Cho; Masafumi Masuda; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  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

3.  Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Mini Das; Howard C Gifford; J Michael O'Connor; Stephen J Glick
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.071

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.