Literature DB >> 17356178

Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance.

Ehsan Samei1, Robert S Saunders, Jay A Baker, David M Delong.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To experimentally determine the relationship between radiation dose and observer accuracy in the detection and discrimination of simulated lesions for digital mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study received institutional review board approval; the informed consent requirement was waived. Three hundred normal craniocaudal images were selected from an existing database of digital mammograms. Simulated mammographic lesions that mimicked benign and malignant masses and clusters of microcalcifications (3.3-7.4 cm in diameter) were then superimposed on images. Images were rendered without and with added radiographic noise to simulate effects of reducing the radiation dose to one half and one quarter of the clinical dose. Images were read by five experienced breast imaging radiologists. Results were analyzed to determine effects of reduced dose on overall interpretation accuracy, detection of microcalcifications and masses, discrimination between benign and malignant masses, and interpretation time.
RESULTS: Overall accuracy decreased from 0.83 with full dose to 0.78 and 0.62 with half and quarter doses, respectively. The decrease associated with transition from full dose to quarter dose was significant (P < .01), primarily because of an effect on detection of microcalcifications (P < .01) and discrimination of masses (P < .05). The level of dose reduction did not significantly affect detection of malignant masses (P > .5). However, reduced dose resulted in an increased mean interpretation time per image by 28% (P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that dose reduction in digital mammography has a measurable but modest effect on diagnostic accuracy. The small magnitude of the effect in response to the drastic reduction of dose suggests potential for modest dose reductions in digital mammography.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17356178     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2432061065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  14 in total

1.  A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.

Authors:  Nicole T Ranger; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  [Workflow in digital screening mammography].

Authors:  U Bick; F Diekmann; E M Fallenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  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

4.  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

5.  An improved method for simulating microcalcifications in digital mammograms.

Authors:  Federica Zanca; Dev Prasad Chakraborty; Chantal Van Ongeval; Jurgen Jacobs; Filip Claus; Guy Marchal; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  The potential use of ultra-low radiation dose images in digital mammography--a clinical proof-of-concept study in craniocaudal views.

Authors:  A M J Bluekens; W J H Veldkamp; K H Schuur; N Karssemeijer; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Correlation of free-response and receiver-operating-characteristic area-under-the-curve estimates: results from independently conducted FROC∕ROC studies in mammography.

Authors:  Federica Zanca; Stephen L Hillis; Filip Claus; Chantal Van Ongeval; Valerie Celis; Veerle Provoost; Hong-Jun Yoon; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 8.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions using magnetization transfer imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Samantha L Heller; Linda Moy; Sherlin Lavianlivi; Melanie Moccaldi; Sungheon Kim
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Julie Cooke; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.685

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.