Literature DB >> 33447988

Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms: a quantitative assessment.

Maxine Tan1,2, Mundher Al-Shabi3, Wai Yee Chan4, Leya Thomas4, Kartini Rahmat4, Kwan Hoong Ng4.   

Abstract

This study objectively evaluates the similarity between standard full-field digital mammograms and two-dimensional synthesized digital mammograms (2DSM) in a cohort of women undergoing mammography. Under an institutional review board-approved data collection protocol, we retrospectively analyzed 407 women with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) examinations performed from September 1, 2014, through February 29, 2016. Both FFDM and 2DSM images were used for the analysis, and 3216 available craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms altogether were included in the dataset. We analyzed the mammograms using a fully automated algorithm that computes 152 structural similarity, texture, and mammographic density-based features. We trained and developed two different global mammographic image feature analysis-based breast cancer detection schemes for 2DSM and FFDM images, respectively. The highest structural similarity features were obtained on the coarse Weber Local Descriptor differential excitation texture feature component computed on the CC view images (0.8770) and MLO view images (0.8889). Although the coarse structures are similar, the global mammographic image feature-based cancer detection scheme trained on 2DSM images outperformed the corresponding scheme trained on FFDM images, with area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.878 ± 0.034 and 0.756 ± 0.052, respectively. Consequently, further investigation is required to examine whether DBT can replace FFDM as a standalone technique, especially for the development of automated objective-based methods.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Algorithms; Breast density; Mammography; Structural similarity; Two-dimensional synthesized mammograms

Year:  2021        PMID: 33447988     DOI: 10.1007/s11517-021-02313-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput        ISSN: 0140-0118            Impact factor:   2.602


  26 in total

1.  WLD: a robust local image descriptor.

Authors:  Jie Chen; Shiguang Shan; Chu He; Guoying Zhao; Matti Pietikäinen; Xilin Chen; Wen Gao
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 6.226

2.  Analysis of structural similarity in mammograms for detection of bilateral asymmetry.

Authors:  Paola Casti; Arianna Mencattini; Marcello Salmeri; Rangaraj M Rangayyan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammogram (2DSM) and conventional full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) for evaluation of breast cancer.

Authors:  Gayoung Choi; Ok Hee Woo; Hye Seon Shin; Seonah Jang; Kyu Ran Cho; Bo Kyoung Seo
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 1.605

4.  Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.

Authors:  Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Ga Ram Kim; Eun Sook Ko; Ko Woon Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations.

Authors:  Julia Garayoa; Margarita Chevalier; Maria Castillo; Ignacio Mahillo-Fernández; Najim Amallal El Ouahabi; Carmen Estrada; Alejandro Tejerina; Olivia Benitez; Julio Valverde
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population.

Authors:  Mireille P Aujero; Sara C Gavenonis; Ron Benjamin; Zugui Zhang; Jacqueline S Holt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Lauren Pantalone; Aimilia Gastounioti; Elizabeth S McDonald; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings.

Authors:  Ingvar Andersson; Debra M Ikeda; Sophia Zackrisson; Mark Ruschin; Tony Svahn; Pontus Timberg; Anders Tingberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Relationships between computer-extracted mammographic texture pattern features and BRCA1/2 mutation status: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Hui Li; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene; Catherine K Chow; Li Lan; Sheila A Prindiville; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Peter W Soballe; Claudia Giambartolomei; Phuong L Mai; Claudia E Galbo; Kathryn Nichols; Kathleen A Calzone; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Mitchell H Gail; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 10.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.