Computerized evaluation of mammographic image quality using phantom images

Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 365-373

  Dougherty, Geoffrey ^a  

^a KUWAIT UNIVERSITY   (Kuwait)

Author keywords

Conspicuity; Image quality; Mammographic phantom; Mammography

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; EVALUATION; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; X RAYS;

PHANTOM IMAGES;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALCIFICATION; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NONHUMAN; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

ARTIFACTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCATTERING, RADIATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0032172349     PISSN: 08956111     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-6111(98)00043-3     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Breast cancer facts and figures. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 1996.
2. Ries LAG, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Hartman AM, Edwards BK. Cancer statistics review 1973-88. NIH Publication no. 91-2789. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1991.
3. Orel SG, Troupin RH. Nonmammographic imaging of the breast: current issues and future prospects. Seminars in Roentgenology, 1993;28:231-241.
4. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Ten-to-fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1982;69:349-355.
5. Kopaus DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. Am J Roentgenol, 1993;161:755-760.
6. Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M, Ryden S, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, Tabar L, Larsson L-G. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet, 1993;341:973-978.
7. Peters GN, Vogel GV, Evans WP, Bondy M, Halabi S, Lord J, Laville EA. The Texas Breast Screening Project: Part 1 Mammographic and clinical results. South Med J, 1993;86:385-399.
8. Bird RE. A successful breast cancer screening program. Cancer, 1992;69:1938-1941.
9. Shapiro S. Periodic breast cancer screening in seven foreign countries. Cancer, 1992;69:1919-1942.
10. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-country program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am, 1992;30:187-210.
11. Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH, Smith RA. Benefit of mammographic screening in women aged 40-49 years. Cancer, 1995;75:1619-1622.
12. Liddell MJ. Mass mammographic screening-the other side of the argument. Aust Fam Physician, 1993;22:1168-1175.
13. Den Otter W, Merchant TE, Beijerunck D, Koten JW. Exclusion from mammographic screening of women genetically predisposed to breast cancer. Anticancer Res, 1993;13:1113-1115.
14. Haiart DC, Henderson J. A comparison of interpretation of screening mammograms by a radiographer, a doctor and a radiologist: results and implications. Brit J Clin Pract, 1991;45:43-45.
15. UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group. Specificity of screening in United Kingdom trial of early detection of breast cancer. Brit Med J, 1992;304:346-349.
16. Dougherty G, Newman D. Quantitation of film-screen contact in radiographic imaging. Radiography, 1996;2:301-309.
17. Medical Imaging-The assessment of image quality. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Report 54. Bethesda, MD, 1996.
18. Yaffe MJ, Byng JW, Caldwell CB, Bennett NR. Anthropomorphic radiological phantoms for mammography. Med Prog Tech, 1993;19:23-30.
19. Chakraborty DP, Eckert MP. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images. Med Phys, 1995;22:133-143.
20. Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH. A review of mammography test objects for the calibration of resolution, contrast and exposure. Med Phys, 1989;16:758-765.
21. Caldwell CB, Fishell EK, Jong RA, Weiser WJ, Yaffe MJ. Evaluation of mammographic image quality: pilot study comparing five methods. Am J Roentgen, 1992;159:295-301.
22. Dougherty G, Newman D. The effect of anticipation in the scoring of mammographic accreditation phantom images. Radiography, 1997;3:279-286.
23. Brooks KW, Trueblood JH, Kearfott KJ, Lawton DT. Automated analysis of mammographic quality control images. Med Phys, 1993;20:881-892.
24. Brooks KW, Trueblood JH, Kearfott KJ, Lawton DT. Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images. Med Phys, 1997;24:709-923.
25. Floyd CE, Baydush AH, Lo JY, Bowsher JE, Ravin CE. Bayesian restoration of chest radiographs: scatter compensation with improved signal-to-noise ratio. Invest Radiol, 1994;29:904-910.
26. Johns PC, Yaffe MJ. X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues. Phys Med Biol, 1987;32:675-695.
27. Wagner AJ, Frey GD. Quantitative mammography contrast threshold test tool. Med Phys, 1995;22:127-132.
28. Baydush AH, Floyd CE. Spatially varying Bayesian image estimation. Acad Radiol, 1996;3:129-136.
29. Rehm K, Strother SC, Anderson JR, Schaper KA, Rottenberg DA. Display of merged multimodality brain images using interleaved pixels with independent color scales. J Nucl Med, 1994;35:1815-1821.
30. Aufrichtig R, Xue P, Thomas CW, Gilmore GC, Wilson DL. Perpetual comparison of pulsed and continuous fluoroscopy. Med Phys, 1994;21:245-256.
31. Hendrick RE. Mammography Quality Control Manual. American College of Radiology, Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Reston, VA: American Cancer Society, 1992.
32. Dougherty G. Quantitative indices for ranking the severity of hepatocellular carcinoma. Comp Med Imag Graph, 1995;19:329-338.
33. Kruskal WH. Ordinal measures of association. J Am Stat Assoc, 1958;53:814-861.
34. Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Report No. 46. Bethesda, MD, 1992:122.
35. Barnes GT. Contrast and scatter in X-ray imaging. Radiographics, 1991;11:307-323.
36. Brooks KW, Trueblood JH, Kearfott KJ. Subjective evaluation of mammographic accreditation phantom images by three observer groups. Invest Radiol, 1994;29:42-47.
37. Wagner RF. Decision theory and the detail SNR of Otto Schade. Photog Sci Eng, 1978;22:41-46.