Literature DB >> 19610286

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

Mini Das1, Howard C Gifford, J Michael O'Connor, Stephen J Glick.   

Abstract

In this article the authors evaluate a recently proposed variable dose (VD)-digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisition technique in terms of the detection accuracy for breast masses and microcalcification (MC) clusters. With this technique, approximately half of the total dose is used for one center projection and the remaining dose is split among the other tomosynthesis projection views. This acquisition method would yield both a projection view and a reconstruction view. One of the aims of this study was to evaluate whether the center projection alone of the VD acquisition can provide equal or superior MC detection in comparison to the 3D images from uniform dose (UD)-DBT. Another aim was to compare the mass-detection capabilities of 3D reconstructions from VD-DBT and UD-DBT. In a localization receiver operating characteristic (LROC) observer study of MC detection, the authors compared the center projection of a VD acquisitioh scheme (at 2 mGy dose) with detector pixel size of 100 microm with the UD-DBT reconstruction (at 4 mGy dose) obtained with a voxel size of 100 microm. MCs with sizes of 150 and 180 microm were used in the study, with each cluster consisting of seven MCs distributed randomly within a small volume. Reconstructed images in UD-DBT were obtained from a projection set that had a total of 4 mGy dose. The current study shows that for MC detection, using the center projection alone of VD acquisition scheme performs worse with area under the LROC curve (AL) of 0.76 than when using the 3D reconstructed image using the UD acquisition scheme (AL=0.84). A 2D ANOVA found a statistically significant difference (p=0.038) at a significance level of 0.05. In the current study, although a reconstructed image was also available using the VD acquisition scheme, it was not used to assist the MC detection task which was done using the center projection alone. In the case of evaluation of detection accuracy of masses, the reconstruction with VD-DBT (AL=0.71) was compared to that obtained from the UD-DBT (AL=0.78). The authors found no statistically significant difference between the two (p-value=0.22), although all the observers performed better for UD-DBT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19610286      PMCID: PMC2832061          DOI: 10.1118/1.3116902

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


  23 in total

1.  Simulation of mammographic lesions.

Authors:  Robert Saunders; Ehsan Samei; Jay Baker; David Delong
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  TLD measurements of in vivo mammographic exposures and the calculated mean glandular dose across the United States.

Authors:  J R Gentry; L A DeWerd
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography.

Authors:  J M Boone; T R Fewell; R J Jennings
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images.

Authors:  R G Swensson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Empirical and theoretical investigation of the noise performance of indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  J H Siewerdsen; L E Antonuk; Y el-Mohri; J Yorkston; W Huang; J M Boudry; I A Cunningham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.071

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

Authors:  Chao-Jen Lai; Chris C Shaw; Gary J Whitman; Wei T Yang; Peter J Dempsey; Victoria Nguyen; Mary F Ice
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 7.  Estimation of currently attainable benefit from mammographic screening of women aged 40-49 years.

Authors:  S A Feig
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Fast calculation of the exact radiological path for a three-dimensional CT array.

Authors:  R L Siddon
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1985 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues.

Authors:  P C Johns; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.

Authors:  Xing Gong; Stephen J Glick; Bob Liu; Aruna A Vedula; Samta Thacker
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis : technical principles, current clinical relevance and future perspectives].

Authors:  K Hellerhoff
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images.

Authors:  Sara Vecchio; Achille Albanese; Paolo Vignoli; Angelo Taibi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  A novel solid-angle tomosynthesis (SAT) scanning scheme.

Authors:  Jin Zhang; Cedric Yu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  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

5.  A statistical, task-based evaluation method for three-dimensional x-ray breast imaging systems using variable-background phantoms.

Authors:  Subok Park; Robert Jennings; Haimo Liu; Aldo Badano; Kyle Myers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Yue-Houng Hu; Wei Zhao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk.

Authors:  Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 8.  A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Generation of voxelized breast phantoms from surgical mastectomy specimens.

Authors:  J Michael O'Connor; Mini Das; Clay S Dider; Mufeed Mahd; Stephen J Glick
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Synthetic breast phantoms from patient based eigenbreasts.

Authors:  Gregory M Sturgeon; Subok Park; William Paul Segars; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.