Joana Boita1,2, Alistair Mackenzie3, Ruben E van Engen2, Mireille Broeders2,4, Ioannis Sechopoulos1,2. 1. Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Guildford, United Kingdom. 4. Radboud University Medical Center, Department for Health Evidence, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Purpose: To validate a previously proposed algorithm that modifies a mammogram to appear as if it was acquired with different technique factors using realistic phantom-based mammograms. Approach: Two digital mammography systems (an indirect- and a direct-detector-based system) were used to acquire realistic mammographic images of five 3D-printed breast phantoms with the technique factors selected by the automatic exposure control and at various other conditions (denoted by the original images). Additional images under other simulated conditions were also acquired: higher or lower tube voltages, different anode/filter combinations, or lower tube current-time products (target images). The signal and noise in the original images were modified to simulate the target images (simulated images). The accuracy of the image modification algorithm was validated by comparing the target and simulated images using the local mean, local standard deviation (SD), local variance, and power spectra (PS) of the image signals. The absolute relative percent error between the target and simulated images for each parameter was calculated at each sub-region of interest (local parameters) and frequency (PS), and then averaged. Results: The local mean signal, local SD, local variance, and PS of the target and simulated images were very similar, with a relative percent error of 5.5%, 3.8%, 7.8%, and 4.4% (indirect system), respectively, and of 3.7%, 3.8%, 7.7%, and 7.5% (direct system), respectively. Conclusions: The algorithm is appropriate for simulating different technique factors. Therefore, it can be used in various studies, for instance to evaluate the impact of technique factors in cancer detection using clinical images.
Purpose: To validate a previously proposed algorithm that modifies a mammogram to appear as if it was acquired with different technique factors using realistic phantom-based mammograms. Approach: Two digital mammography systems (an indirect- and a direct-detector-based system) were used to acquire realistic mammographic images of five 3D-printed breast phantoms with the technique factors selected by the automatic exposure control and at various other conditions (denoted by the original images). Additional images under other simulated conditions were also acquired: higher or lower tube voltages, different anode/filter combinations, or lower tube current-time products (target images). The signal and noise in the original images were modified to simulate the target images (simulated images). The accuracy of the image modification algorithm was validated by comparing the target and simulated images using the local mean, local standard deviation (SD), local variance, and power spectra (PS) of the image signals. The absolute relative percent error between the target and simulated images for each parameter was calculated at each sub-region of interest (local parameters) and frequency (PS), and then averaged. Results: The local mean signal, local SD, local variance, and PS of the target and simulated images were very similar, with a relative percent error of 5.5%, 3.8%, 7.8%, and 4.4% (indirect system), respectively, and of 3.7%, 3.8%, 7.7%, and 7.5% (direct system), respectively. Conclusions: The algorithm is appropriate for simulating different technique factors. Therefore, it can be used in various studies, for instance to evaluate the impact of technique factors in cancer detection using clinical images.
Authors: Martin J Yaffe; Aili K Bloomquist; David M Hunter; Gordon E Mawdsley; Anna M Chiarelli; Derek Muradali; James G Mainprize Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Andria Hadjipanteli; Premkumar Elangovan; Alistair Mackenzie; Kevin Wells; David R Dance; Kenneth C Young Journal: Phys Med Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 2.685
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
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
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