Alistair Mackenzie1, Joana Boita2,3, David R Dance1,4, Kenneth C Young1,4. 1. Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Guildford, United Kingdom. 2. Radboud University Medical Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. University of Surrey, Department of Physics, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Purpose: We set out a fully developed algorithm for adapting mammography images to appear as if acquired using different technique factors by changing the signal and noise within the images. The algorithm accounts for difference between the absorption by the object being imaged and the imaging system. Approach: Images were acquired using a Hologic Selenia Dimensions x-ray unit for the validation, of three thicknesses of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) blocks with or without different thicknesses of PMMA contrast objects acquired for a range of technique factors. One set of images was then adapted to appear the same as a target image acquired with a higher or lower tube voltage and/or a different anode/filter combination. The average linearized pixel value, normalized noise power spectra (NNPS), and standard deviation of the flat field images and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the contrast object images were calculated for the simulated and target images. A simulation study tested the algorithm on images created using a voxel breast phantom at different technique factors and the images compared using local signal level, variance, and power spectra. Results: The average pixel value, NNPS, and standard deviation for the simulated and target images were found to be within 9%. The CNRs of the simulated and target images were found to be within 5% of each other. The differences between the target and simulated images of the voxel phantom were similar to those of the natural variability. Conclusions: We demonstrated that images can be successfully adapted to appear as if acquired using different technique factors. Using this conversion algorithm, it may be possible to examine the effect of tube voltage and anode/filter combination on cancer detection using clinical images.
Purpose: We set out a fully developed algorithm for adapting mammography images to appear as if acquired using different technique factors by changing the signal and noise within the images. The algorithm accounts for difference between the absorption by the object being imaged and the imaging system. Approach: Images were acquired using a Hologic Selenia Dimensions x-ray unit for the validation, of three thicknesses of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) blocks with or without different thicknesses of PMMA contrast objects acquired for a range of technique factors. One set of images was then adapted to appear the same as a target image acquired with a higher or lower tube voltage and/or a different anode/filter combination. The average linearized pixel value, normalized noise power spectra (NNPS), and standard deviation of the flat field images and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the contrast object images were calculated for the simulated and target images. A simulation study tested the algorithm on images created using a voxel breast phantom at different technique factors and the images compared using local signal level, variance, and power spectra. Results: The average pixel value, NNPS, and standard deviation for the simulated and target images were found to be within 9%. The CNRs of the simulated and target images were found to be within 5% of each other. The differences between the target and simulated images of the voxel phantom were similar to those of the natural variability. Conclusions: We demonstrated that images can be successfully adapted to appear as if acquired using different technique factors. Using this conversion algorithm, it may be possible to examine the effect of tube voltage and anode/filter combination on cancer detection using clinical images.
Authors: Premkumar Elangovan; Alistair Mackenzie; David R Dance; Kenneth C Young; Victoria Cooke; Louise Wilkinson; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Matthew G Wallis; Kevin Wells Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Alistair Mackenzie; Timothy D Eales; Hannah L Dunn; Mary Yip Braidley; David R Dance; Kenneth C Young Journal: Phys Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Elena Salvagnini; Hilde Bosmans; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andreas Van Steen; Koen Michielsen; Lesley Cockmartin; Lara Struelens; Nicholas W Marshall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 4.071
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: 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: Lucas R Borges; Helder C R de Oliveira; Polyana F Nunes; Predrag R Bakic; Andrew D A Maidment; Marcelo A C Vieira Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.071