Literature DB >> 18649467

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

Chao-Jen Lai1, 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.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare microcalcification detectability of two commercial full-field digital mammography (DM) systems. The first unit was a flat panel based DM system (FFDM) which employed an anti-scatter grid method to reject scatter, and the second unit was a charge-coupled device-based DM system (SSDM) which used scanning slot imaging geometry to reduce scatter radiation. Both systems have comparable scatter-to-primary ratios. In this study, 125-160 and 200-250 microm calcium carbonate grains were used to simulate microcalcifications and imaged by both DM systems. The calcium carbonate grains were overlapped with a 5-cm-thick 50% adipose/50% glandular simulated breast tissue slab and an anthropomorphic breast phantom (RMI 165, Gammex) for imaging at two different mean glandular dose levels: 0.87 and 1.74 mGy. A reading study was conducted with seven board certified mammographers with images displayed on review workstations. A five-point confidence level rating was used to score each detection task. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and the area under the ROC curve (A(z)) was used to quantify and compare the performances of these two systems. The results showed that with the simulated breast tissue slab (uniform background), the SSDM system resulted in higher A(z)'s than the FFDM system at both MGD levels with the difference statistically significant at 0.87 mGy only. With the anthropomorphic breast phantom (tissue structure background), the SSDM system performed better than the FFDM system at 0.87 mGy but worse at 1.74 mGy. However, the differences were not found to be statistically significant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18649467      PMCID: PMC2809719          DOI: 10.1118/1.2919768

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


  28 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  Cassette-based digital mammography.

Authors:  J A Seibert; J M Boone; V N Cooper; K K Lindfors
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2004-10

4.  Calculation of dose and contrast for two mammographic grids.

Authors:  D R Dance; J Persliden; G A Carlsson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  The formulation of tissue substitute materials using basic interaction data.

Authors:  D R White
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Development of an anthropomorphic breast phantom.

Authors:  C B Caldwell; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1990 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  The computation of scatter in mammography by Monte Carlo methods.

Authors:  D R Dance; G J Day
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography.

Authors:  X Wu; E L Gingold; G T Barnes; D M Tucker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Recent trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality.

Authors:  James V Lacey; Susan S Devesa; Louise A Brinton
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.216

10.  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

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.

Authors:  Xinming Liu; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William R Geiser; Youtao Shen; Ying Yi; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Coherent scatter imaging Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  Laila Hassan; Carolyn A MacDonald
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-08-26

3.  Role of Ultrasound Imaging in the Prediction of TRIM67 in Brain Metastases From Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Zhidong Xuan; Ting Ma; Yue Qin; Yajie Guo
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 4.086

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.