Literature DB >> 24190140

Stereoscopic interpretation of low-dose breast tomosynthesis projection images.

Gautam S Muralidhar1, Mia K Markey, Alan C Bovik, Tamara Miner Haygood, Tanya W Stephens, William R Geiser, Naveen Garg, Beatriz E Adrada, Basak E Dogan, Selin Carkaci, Raunak Khisty, Gary J Whitman.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate stereoscopic perception of low-dose breast tomosynthesis projection images. In this Institutional Review Board exempt study, craniocaudal breast tomosynthesis cases (N = 47), consisting of 23 biopsy-proven malignant mass cases and 24 normal cases, were retrospectively reviewed. A stereoscopic pair comprised of two projection images that were ±4° apart from the zero angle projection was displayed on a Planar PL2010M stereoscopic display (Planar Systems, Inc., Beaverton, OR, USA). An experienced breast imager verified the truth for each case stereoscopically. A two-phase blinded observer study was conducted. In the first phase, two experienced breast imagers rated their ability to perceive 3D information using a scale of 1-3 and described the most suspicious lesion using the BI-RADS® descriptors. In the second phase, four experienced breast imagers were asked to make a binary decision on whether they saw a mass for which they would initiate a diagnostic workup or not and also report the location of the mass and provide a confidence score in the range of 0-100. The sensitivity and the specificity of the lesion detection task were evaluated. The results from our study suggest that radiologists who can perceive stereo can reliably interpret breast tomosynthesis projection images using stereoscopic viewing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24190140      PMCID: PMC3948934          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-013-9648-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  11 in total

Review 1.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential.

Authors:  James T Dobbins; Devon J Godfrey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-10-07       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study.

Authors:  Walter F Good; Gordon S Abrams; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.

Authors:  David Gur; Gordon S Abrams; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Ronald L Perrin; Grace Y Rathfon; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection.

Authors:  Lincoln J Webb; Ehsan Samei; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker; Sujata V Ghate; Connie Kim; Mary Scott Soo; Ruth Walsh
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.

Authors:  L T Niklason; B T Christian; L E Niklason; D B Kopans; D E Castleberry; B H Opsahl-Ong; C E Landberg; P J Slanetz; A A Giardino; R Moore; D Albagli; M C DeJule; P F Fitzgerald; D F Fobare; B W Giambattista; R F Kwasnick; J Liu; S J Lubowski; G E Possin; J F Richotte; C Y Wei; R F Wirth
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Stereopsis and stereoblindness.

Authors:  W Richards
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1970       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Steven P Poplack; Tor D Tosteson; Christine A Kogel; Helene M Nagy
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

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

9.  Binary and multi-category ratings in a laboratory observer performance study: a comparison.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Jill L King; Amy H Klym; Cathy S Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Lara A Hardesty; Marie A Ganott; Ronald L Perrin; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves.

Authors:  Xavier Robin; Natacha Turck; Alexandre Hainard; Natalia Tiberti; Frédérique Lisacek; Jean-Charles Sanchez; Markus Müller
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 3.307

View more
  3 in total

1.  Clinical performance metrics of 3D stereoscopic digital mammography compared with 2D digital mammography: observer study.

Authors:  Akiko Daidoji; Takatoshi Aoki; Seiichi Murakami; Mari Miyata; Masami Fujii; Takefumi Katsuki; Yuzuru Inoue; Yuko Tashima; Yoshika Nagata; Keiji Hirata; Fumihiro Tanaka; Yukunori Korogi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Virtual assessment of stereoscopic viewing of digital breast tomosynthesis projection images.

Authors:  Gezheng Wen; Ho-Chang Chang; Jacob Reinhold; Joseph Y Lo; Mia K Markey
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-01-17

3.  Progress in diagnosis of breast cancer: Advances in radiology technology.

Authors:  J Mari Beth Linder; Alan D Schiska
Journal:  Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.