Literature DB >> 22755704

Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.

Lucy M Warren1, Alistair Mackenzie, Julie Cooke, Rosalind M Given-Wilson, Matthew G Wallis, Dev P Chakraborty, David R Dance, Hilde Bosmans, Kenneth C Young.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate if microcalcification detection varies significantly when mammographic images are acquired using different image qualities, including: different detectors, dose levels, and different image processing algorithms. An additional aim was to determine how the standard European method of measuring image quality using threshold gold thickness measured with a CDMAM phantom and the associated limits in current EU guidelines relate to calcification detection.
METHODS: One hundred and sixty two normal breast images were acquired on an amorphous selenium direct digital (DR) system. Microcalcification clusters extracted from magnified images of slices of mastectomies were electronically inserted into half of the images. The calcification clusters had a subtle appearance. All images were adjusted using a validated mathematical method to simulate the appearance of images from a computed radiography (CR) imaging system at the same dose, from both systems at half this dose, and from the DR system at quarter this dose. The original 162 images were processed with both Hologic and Agfa (Musica-2) image processing. All other image qualities were processed with Agfa (Musica-2) image processing only. Seven experienced observers marked and rated any identified suspicious regions. Free response operating characteristic (FROC) and ROC analyses were performed on the data. The lesion sensitivity at a nonlesion localization fraction (NLF) of 0.1 was also calculated. Images of the CDMAM mammographic test phantom were acquired using the automatic setting on the DR system. These images were modified to the additional image qualities used in the observer study. The images were analyzed using automated software. In order to assess the relationship between threshold gold thickness and calcification detection a power law was fitted to the data.
RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in calcification detection using CR compared with DR: the alternative FROC (AFROC) area decreased from 0.84 to 0.63 and the ROC area decreased from 0.91 to 0.79 (p < 0.0001). This corresponded to a 30% drop in lesion sensitivity at a NLF equal to 0.1. Detection was also sensitive to the dose used. There was no significant difference in detection between the two image processing algorithms used (p > 0.05). It was additionally found that lower threshold gold thickness from CDMAM analysis implied better cluster detection. The measured threshold gold thickness passed the acceptable limit set in the EU standards for all image qualities except half dose CR. However, calcification detection varied significantly between image qualities. This suggests that the current EU guidelines may need revising.
CONCLUSIONS: Microcalcification detection was found to be sensitive to detector and dose used. Standard measurements of image quality were a good predictor of microcalcification cluster detection.
© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22755704      PMCID: PMC4108702          DOI: 10.1118/1.4718571

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


  30 in total

1.  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

2.  Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).

Authors:  Xiujiang J Rong; Chris C Shaw; Dennis A Johnston; Michael R Lemacks; Xinming Liu; Gary J Whitman; Mark J Dryden; Tanya W Stephens; Stephen K Thompson; Kerry T Krugh; Chao-Jen Lai
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Computer-aided detection schemes: the effect of limiting the number of cued regions in each case.

Authors:  Bin Zheng; Joseph K Leader; Gordon Abrams; Betty Shindel; Victor Catullo; Walter F Good; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Image resampling effects in mammographic image simulation.

Authors:  M Yip; A Mackenzie; E Lewis; D R Dance; K C Young; W Christmas; K Wells
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos; Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Srinivasan Vedantham; Carl J D'Orsi; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.

Authors:  Gerd Schueller; Christopher C Riedl; Reinhold Mallek; Klemens Eibenberger; Herbert Langenberger; Elisabeth Kaindl; Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini; Margaretha Rudas; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2007-09-24       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  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

8.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses: four-view strategy for screening mammography.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Chuan Zhou; Yi-Ta Wu; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  20 in total

1.  Radiation doses received in the United Kingdom breast screening programme in 2010 to 2012.

Authors:  Kenneth C Young; Jennifer M Oduko
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  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

3.  Signal template generation from acquired images for model observer-based image quality analysis in mammography.

Authors:  Christiana Balta; Ramona W Bouwman; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Mireille J M Broeders; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Ruben E van Engen
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-09-08

4.  An investigation into the validity of utilising the CDRAD 2.0 phantom for optimisation studies in digital radiography.

Authors:  Sadeq Al-Murshedi; Peter Hogg; Andrew England
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.

Authors:  Khaled Alkhalifah; Ajit Brindhaban
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 1.927

6.  Is there a safety-net effect with computer-aided detection?

Authors:  Ethan Du-Crow; Susan M Astley; Johan Hulleman
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2019-12-26

7.  Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography.

Authors:  Hilde Bosmans; An De Hauwere; Kim Lemmens; Federica Zanca; Hubert Thierens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Koen Van Herck; Andre Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Luc Bleyen; Gretel Vande Putte; Eliane Kellen; Griet Mortier; Erik Van Limbergen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  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

10.  Dosimetry in x-ray-based breast imaging.

Authors:  David R Dance; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.