Literature DB >> 24320526

Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program.

Martin J Yaffe1, Aili K Bloomquist, David M Hunter, Gordon E Mawdsley, Anna M Chiarelli, Derek Muradali, James G Mainprize.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare physical measures pertaining to image quality among digital mammography systems utilized in a large breast screening program. To examine qualitatively differences in these measures and differences in clinical cancer detection rates between CR and DR among sites within that program.
METHODS: As part of the routine quality assurance program for screening, field measurements are made of several variables considered to correlate with the diagnostic quality of medical images including: modulation transfer function, noise equivalent quanta, d' (an index of lesion detectability) and air kerma to allow estimation of mean glandular dose. In addition, images of the mammography accreditation phantom are evaluated.
RESULTS: It was found that overall there were marked differences between the performance measures of DR and CR mammography systems. In particular, the modulation transfer functions obtained with the DR systems were found to be higher, even for larger detector element sizes. Similarly, the noise equivalent quanta, d', and the phantom scores were higher, while the failure rates associated with low signal-to-noise ratio and high dose were lower with DR. These results were consistent with previous findings in the authors' program that the breast cancer detection rates at sites employing CR technology were, on average, 30.6% lower than those that used DR mammography.
CONCLUSIONS: While the clinical study was not large enough to allow a statistically powered system-by-system assessment of cancer detection accuracy, the physical measures expressing spatial resolution, and signal-to-noise ratio are consistent with the published finding that sites employing CR systems had lower cancer detection rates than those using DR systems for screening mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24320526     DOI: 10.1118/1.4829516

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


  10 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

2.  Model predictions for the wide-angle x-ray scatter signals of healthy and malignant breast duct biopsies.

Authors:  Robert J LeClair; Andrew Ferreira; Nancy McDonald; Curtis Laamanen; Robert Y Tang
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-10-23

Review 3.  Research in digital mammography and tomosynthesis at the University of Toronto.

Authors:  Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2014-06-25

4.  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

5.  Validation of a mammographic image quality modification algorithm using 3D-printed breast phantoms.

Authors:  Joana Boita; Alistair Mackenzie; Ruben E van Engen; Mireille Broeders; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2021-05-20

6.  How does image quality affect radiologists' perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography?

Authors:  Joana Boita; Ruben E van Engen; Alistair Mackenzie; Anders Tingberg; Hilde Bosmans; Anetta Bolejko; Sophia Zackrisson; Matthew G Wallis; Debra M Ikeda; Chantal Van Ongeval; Ruud Pijnappel; Mireille Broeders; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Enhancing Tabletop X-Ray Phase Contrast Imaging with Nano-Fabrication.

Authors:  Houxun Miao; Andrew A Gomella; Katherine J Harmon; Eric E Bennett; Nicholas Chedid; Sami Znati; Alireza Panna; Barbara A Foster; Priya Bhandarkar; Han Wen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Lipid-weighted intraoperative photoacoustic tomography of breast tumors: Volumetric comparison to preoperative MRI.

Authors:  Ivan Kosik; Muriel Brackstone; Anat Kornecki; Astrid Chamson-Reig; Philip Wong; Jeffrey J L Carson
Journal:  Photoacoustics       Date:  2020-04-24

9.  Evaluation of Doses and Image Quality in Mammography with Screen-Film, CR, and DR Detectors - Application of the ACR Phantom.

Authors:  Wioletta Ślusarczyk-Kacprzyk; Witold Skrzyński; Ewa Fabiszewska
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2016-08-18

10.  The influence of breast density and key demographics of radiographers on mammography reporting performance - a pilot study.

Authors:  Maram Alakhras; Dana S Al-Mousa; Alaa K Alqadi; Haneen A Sabaneh; Ruba M Karasneh; Kelly M Spuur
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2021-05-24
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.