Alistair Mackenzie1,2, Lucy M Warren3,4, Matthew G Wallis5, Julie Cooke6, Rosalind M Given-Wilson7, David R Dance3,4, Dev P Chakraborty8, Mark D Halling-Brown9, Padraig T Looney3, Kenneth C Young3,4. 1. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK. alistairmackenzie@nhs.net. 2. Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK. alistairmackenzie@nhs.net. 3. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK. 4. Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK. 5. Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. 6. Jarvis Breast Screening and Diagnostic Centre, Guildford, UK. 7. Department of Radiology, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 8. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 9. Scientific Computing, Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of different types of detectors in breast cancer detection. METHODS: A mammography image set containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions, biopsy-proven benign lesions, simulated malignant calcification clusters and normals was acquired using amorphous-selenium (a-Se) detectors. The images were adapted to simulate four types of detectors at the same radiation dose: digital radiography (DR) detectors with a-Se and caesium iodide (CsI) convertors, and computed radiography (CR) detectors with a powder phosphor (PIP) and a needle phosphor (NIP). Seven observers marked suspicious and benign lesions. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). The cancer detection fraction (CDF) was estimated for a representative image set from screening. RESULTS: No significant differences in the FoMs between the DR detectors were measured. For calcification clusters and non-calcification lesions, both CR detectors' FoMs were significantly lower than for DR detectors. The calcification cluster's FoM for CR NIP was significantly better than for CR PIP. The estimated CDFs with CR PIP and CR NIP detectors were up to 15% and 22% lower, respectively, than for DR detectors. CONCLUSION: Cancer detection is affected by detector type, and the use of CR in mammography should be reconsidered. KEY POINTS: The type of mammography detector can affect the cancer detection rates. CR detectors performed worse than DR detectors in mammography. Needle phosphor CR performed better than powder phosphor CR. Calcification clusters detection is more sensitive to detector type than other cancers.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of different types of detectors in breast cancer detection. METHODS: A mammography image set containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions, biopsy-proven benign lesions, simulated malignant calcification clusters and normals was acquired using amorphous-selenium (a-Se) detectors. The images were adapted to simulate four types of detectors at the same radiation dose: digital radiography (DR) detectors with a-Se and caesium iodide (CsI) convertors, and computed radiography (CR) detectors with a powder phosphor (PIP) and a needle phosphor (NIP). Seven observers marked suspicious and benign lesions. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). The cancer detection fraction (CDF) was estimated for a representative image set from screening. RESULTS: No significant differences in the FoMs between the DR detectors were measured. For calcification clusters and non-calcification lesions, both CR detectors' FoMs were significantly lower than for DR detectors. The calcification cluster's FoM for CR NIP was significantly better than for CR PIP. The estimated CDFs with CR PIP and CR NIP detectors were up to 15% and 22% lower, respectively, than for DR detectors. CONCLUSION:Cancer detection is affected by detector type, and the use of CR in mammography should be reconsidered. KEY POINTS: The type of mammography detector can affect the cancer detection rates. CR detectors performed worse than DR detectors in mammography. Needle phosphor CR performed better than powder phosphor CR. Calcification clusters detection is more sensitive to detector type than other cancers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer screening; Computed radiography; Digital mammography; Image quality; Observer study
Authors: Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Gretel Vande Putte; Federica Zanca; Hilde Bosmans; Guy Marchal; Erik Van Limbergen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-05-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: BaoLin P Soh; Warwick Lee; Mark F McEntee; Peter L Kench; Warren M Reed; Rob Heard; Dev P Chakraborty; Patrick C Brennan Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lucy M Warren; Alistair Mackenzie; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Matthew G Wallis; Dev P Chakraborty; David R Dance; Hilde Bosmans; Kenneth C Young Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mark D Halling-Brown; Lucy M Warren; Dominic Ward; Emma Lewis; Alistair Mackenzie; Matthew G Wallis; Louise S Wilkinson; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Rita McAvinchey; Kenneth C Young Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-11-25
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
Authors: Joana Boita; Alistair Mackenzie; Ruben E van Engen; Mireille Broeders; Ioannis Sechopoulos Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-05-20
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