Literature DB >> 20603409

Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study.

M Koutalonis1, H Delis, A Pascoal, G Spyrou, L Costaridou, G Panayiotakis.   

Abstract

Magnification, which is considered to be a relatively high "dose cost" mammographic technique, is a complementary examination performed on women exhibiting breast complaints or abnormalities. Particular attention is given to the imaging procedure as the primary aim is to confirm the existence of suspected abnormalities, despite the additional dose. The introduction of post-processing capabilities and the widespread use of digital mammography promoted some controversy in the last decades on whether electronic zoom performed on the derived initial screening mammogram can effectively replace this technique. This study used Monte Carlo simulation methods to derive simulated screening mammograms produced under several exposure conditions, aiming to electronically magnify and compare them to the corresponding magnification mammograms. Comparison was based on quantitative measurements of image quality, namely contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and spatial resolution. Results demonstrated that CNR was higher for geometric magnification compared to the case of electronic zooming. The percentage difference was higher for lesions of smaller radius and achieved 29% for 0.10 mm details. Although spatial resolution is maintained high in the zoomed images, when investigating microcalcifications of 0.05 mm radius or less, only with geometric magnification can they be visualised.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20603409      PMCID: PMC3473689          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/21753020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  32 in total

1.  Statistical approach for image quality evaluation in daily medical practice.

Authors:  V A Gurvich
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  MASTOS: Mammography Simulation Tool for design Optimization Studies.

Authors:  G Spyrou; G Panayiotakis; G Tzanakos
Journal:  Med Inform Internet Med       Date:  2000 Oct-Dec

3.  Interpolation revisited.

Authors:  P Thévenaz; T Blu; M Unser
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 4.  Computer-aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  C J Vyborny; M L Giger; R M Nishikawa
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  A Monte Carlo simulation model of mammographic imaging with x-ray sources of finite dimensions.

Authors:  G Spyrou; G Tzanakos; G Nikiforides; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2002-03-21       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Effects of magnification and zooming on depth perception in digital stereomammography: an observer performance study.

Authors:  Heang-Ping Chan; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Janet E Bailey; Katherine Klein; Katie L Darner; Berkman Sahiner
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-11-21       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Film-screen magnification versus electronic magnification and enhancement of digitized contact mammograms in the assessment of subtle microcalcifications.

Authors:  K Perisinakis; J Damilakis; E Kontogiannis; N Gourtsoyiannis
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 6.016

8.  Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications.

Authors:  M J Kim; J H Youk; D R Kang; S H Choi; J Y Kwak; E J Son; E-K Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-09-14       Impact factor: 3.039

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.  [Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming].

Authors:  U Fischer; F Baum; S Obenauer; M Funke; K P Hermann; E Grabbe
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 0.635

View more
  4 in total

1.  Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology versus Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Increases the Quality of Intraoperative Imaging?

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; M P Lux; E Wenkel; S Schwab; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.915

2.  Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Jane Lange; Jeroen J van den Broek; Christoph I Lee; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Dominique Ritley; Karla Kerlikowske; Joshua J Fenton; Joy Melnikow; Harry J de Koning; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Use of Tomosynthesis in Intraoperative Digital Specimen Radiography - Is a Reduction of Breast Re-excision Rates Possible?

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M R Bani; M P Lux; M Meier-Meitinger; E Wenkel; S Schwab; M W Beckmann; M Uder; B Adamietz
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.915

4.  Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology, Specimen Radiography System (SRS) and Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Can Optimise Surgical Therapy?

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; C R Loehberg; B Brehm; M Hammon; M Saake; P Dankerl; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.915

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.