Literature DB >> 27896452

Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography.

Agnes M F Fausto1, M C Lopes2,3, M C de Sousa2, Tânia A C Furquim4, Anderson W Mol5, Fermin G Velasco5.   

Abstract

Nowadays, the optimization in digital mammography is one of the most important challenges in diagnostic radiology. The new digital technology has introduced additional elements to be considered in this scenario. A major goal of mammography is related to the detection of structures on the order of micrometers (μm) and the need to distinguish the different types of tissues, with very close density values. The diagnosis in mammography faces the difficulty that the breast tissues and pathological findings have very close linear attenuation coefficients within the energy range used in mammography. The aim of this study was to develop a methodology for optimizing exposure parameters of digital mammography based on a new Figure of Merit: FOM ≡ (IQFinv)2/AGD, considering the image quality and dose. The study was conducted using the digital mammography Senographe DS/GE, and CDMAM and TORMAM phantoms. The characterization of clinical practice, carried out in the mammography system under study, was performed considering different breast thicknesses, the technical parameters of exposure, and processing options of images used by the equipment's automatic exposure system. The results showed a difference between the values of the optimized parameters and those ones chosen by the automatic system of the mammography unit, specifically for small breast. The optimized exposure parameters showed better results than those obtained by the automatic system of the mammography, for the image quality parameters and its impact on detection of breast structures when analyzed by radiologists.

Keywords:  CDMAM; Contrast-detail analysis; Digital mammography; Figure of merit; Image quality; Optimization; TORMAM

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27896452      PMCID: PMC5359212          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-016-9928-3

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


  30 in total

1.  Phase contrast enhancement of x-ray mammography: a design study.

Authors:  C J Kotre; I P Birch
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  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

3.  Determination of the detective quantum efficiency of a digital x-ray detector: comparison of three evaluations using a common image data set.

Authors:  Ulrich Neitzel; Susanne Günther-Kohfahl; Giovanni Borasi; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  The use of a figure-of-merit (FOM) for optimisation in digital mammography: a literature review.

Authors:  M Borg; I Badr; G J Royle
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 0.972

5.  A preliminary investigation of the imaging performance of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography using a new design of mammographic quality control test object.

Authors:  A R Cowen; D S Brettle; N J Coleman; G J Parkin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.

Authors:  Thomas K Nishino; Xizeng Wu; Raleigh F Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.

Authors:  Paula Toroi; Federica Zanca; Kenneth C Young; Chantal van Ongeval; Guy Marchal; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.

Authors:  J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography.

Authors:  Baoying Chen; Yingmei Wang; Xin Sun; Wei Guo; Ming Zhao; Guangbin Cui; Lina Hu; Pei Li; Yan Ren; Jun Feng; Jun Yu
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 10.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  Imaging and Dosimetric Study on Direct Flat-Panel Detector-Based Digital Mammography System.

Authors:  Reena Sharma; S D Sharma; P S Sarkar; D Datta
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.