Literature DB >> 17388156

Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies.

Mark Ruschin1, Pontus Timberg, Magnus Båth, Bengt Hemdal, Tony Svahn, Rob S Saunders, Ehsan Samei, Ingvar Andersson, Soren Mattsson, Dev P Chakrabort, Anders Tingber.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of dose reduction in digital mammography on the detection of two lesion types-malignant masses and clusters of microcalcifications. Two free-response observer studies were performed-one for each lesion type. Ninety screening images were retrospectively selected; each image was originally acquired under automatic exposure conditions, corresponding to an average glandular dose of 1.3 mGy for a standard breast (50 mm compressed breast thickness with 50% glandularity). For each study, one to three simulated lesions were added to each of 40 images (abnormals) while 50 were kept without lesions (normals). Two levels of simulated system noise were added to the images yielding two new image sets, corresponding to simulated dose levels of 50% and 30% of the original images (100%). The manufacturer's standard display processing was subsequently applied to all images. Four radiologists experienced in mammography evaluated the images by searching for lesions and marking and assigning confidence levels to suspicious regions. The search data were analyzed using jackknife free-response (JA-FROC) methodology. For the detection of masses, the mean figure-of-merit (FOM) averaged over all readers was 0.74, 0.71, and 0.68 corresponding to dose levels of 100%, 50%, and 30%, respectively. These values were not statistically different from each other (F= 1.67, p=0.19) but showed a decreasing trend. In contrast, in the microcalcification study the mean FOM was 0.93, 0.67, and 0.38 for the same dose levels and these values were all significantly different from each other (F = 109.84, p < 0.0001). The results indicate that lowering the present dose level by a factor of two compromised the detection of microcalcifications but had a weaker effect on mass detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17388156      PMCID: PMC1892618          DOI: 10.1118/1.2405324

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


  25 in total

1.  Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs.

Authors:  E Samei; M J Flynn; W R Eyler
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol.

Authors:  D R Dance; C L Skinner; K C Young; J R Beckett; C J Kotre
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?

Authors:  Walter Huda; Anthony M Sajewicz; Kent M Ogden; Ernest M Scalzetti; David R Dance
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 4.  Assessment of medical imaging and computer-assist systems: lessons from recent experience.

Authors:  Robert F Wagner; Sergey V Beiden; Gregory Campbell; Charles E Metz; William M Sacks
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

6.  Concerning the relationship between benefit and radiation risk, and cancers detected and induced, in a breast screening programme.

Authors:  J Law; K Faulkner
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 8.  Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise.

Authors:  A E Burgess; F L Jacobson; P F Judy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.

Authors:  R E Bird; T W Wallace; B C Yankaskas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  23 in total

1.  Comparison between chest digital tomosynthesis and CT as a screening method to detect artificial pulmonary nodules: a phantom study.

Authors:  T Gomi; M Nakajima; H Fujiwara; T Takeda; K Saito; T Umeda; K Sakaguchi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  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

3.  Comparison of model and human observer performance for detection and discrimination tasks using dual-energy x-ray images.

Authors:  Samuel Richard; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  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

5.  Penalized maximum likelihood reconstruction for improved microcalcification detection in breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Mini Das; Howard C Gifford; J Michael O'Connor; Stephen J Glick
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Improved computer-aided detection of small polyps in CT colonography using interpolation for curvature estimation.

Authors:  Jiamin Liu; Suraj Kabadi; Robert Van Uitert; Nicholas Petrick; Rachid Deriche; Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

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

10.  A status report on free-response analysis.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 0.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.