Alistair Mackenzie1, Lucy M Warren2, Matthew G Wallis3, Rosalind M Given-Wilson4, Julie Cooke5, David R Dance6, Dev P Chakraborty7, Mark D Halling-Brown8, Padraig T Looney9, Kenneth C Young10. 1. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK. Electronic address: alistairmackenzie@nhs.net. 2. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK. Electronic address: Lucy.Warren@nhs.net. 3. Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: matthew.wallis1@nhs.net. 4. Department of Radiology, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: Rosalind.Given-Wilson@stgeorges.nhs.uk. 5. Jarvis Breast Screening and Diagnostic Centre, Guildford, UK. Electronic address: cookejulie@hotmail.com. 6. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK; Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK. Electronic address: daviddance@nhs.net. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: dpc10ster@gmail.com. 8. Scientific Computing, Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK. Electronic address: mhalling-brown@nhs.net. 9. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK. Electronic address: padraig.looney@nhs.net. 10. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: ken.young@nhs.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between image quality measurements and the clinical performance of digital mammographic systems. METHODS: Mammograms containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions and simulated malignant calcification clusters were adapted to appear as if acquired by four types of detector. Observers searched for suspicious lesions and gave these a malignancy score. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). Images of a CDMAM contrast-detail phantom were adapted to appear as if acquired using the same four detectors as the clinical images. The resultant threshold gold thicknesses were compared to the FoMs using a linear regression model and an F-test was used to find if the gradient of the relationship was significantly non-zero. RESULTS: The detectors with the best image quality measurement also had the highest FoM values. The gradient of the inverse relationship between FoMs and threshold gold thickness for the 0.25mm diameter disk was significantly different from zero for calcification clusters (p=0.027), but not for non-calcification lesions (p=0.11). Systems performing just above the minimum image quality level set in the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis resulted in reduced cancer detection rates compared to systems performing at the achievable level. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness of mammography for the task of detecting calcification clusters was found to be linked to image quality assessment using the CDMAM phantom. The European Guidelines should be reviewed as the current minimum image quality standards may be too low.
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between image quality measurements and the clinical performance of digital mammographic systems. METHODS: Mammograms containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions and simulated malignant calcification clusters were adapted to appear as if acquired by four types of detector. Observers searched for suspicious lesions and gave these a malignancy score. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). Images of a CDMAM contrast-detail phantom were adapted to appear as if acquired using the same four detectors as the clinical images. The resultant threshold gold thicknesses were compared to the FoMs using a linear regression model and an F-test was used to find if the gradient of the relationship was significantly non-zero. RESULTS: The detectors with the best image quality measurement also had the highest FoM values. The gradient of the inverse relationship between FoMs and threshold gold thickness for the 0.25mm diameter disk was significantly different from zero for calcification clusters (p=0.027), but not for non-calcification lesions (p=0.11). Systems performing just above the minimum image quality level set in the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis resulted in reduced cancer detection rates compared to systems performing at the achievable level. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness of mammography for the task of detecting calcification clusters was found to be linked to image quality assessment using the CDMAM phantom. The European Guidelines should be reviewed as the current minimum image quality standards may be too low.
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: Kristina T Wigati; Nicholas W Marshall; Kim Lemmens; Joke Binst; Annelies Jacobs; Lesley Cockmartin; Guozhi Zhang; Liesbeth Vancoillie; Dimitar Petrov; Dirk A N Vandenbroucke; Djarwani S Soejoko; Hilde Bosmans Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-04-27
Authors: Joana Boita; Alistair Mackenzie; Ruben E van Engen; Mireille Broeders; Ioannis Sechopoulos Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-05-20