How do radiographic techniques affect mass lesion detection performance in digital mammography?

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 5, Issue 26, 2004, Pages 372-382

  Huda, Walter ^a   Ogden, Kent M ^a   Scalzetti, Ernest M ^a   Dudley, Eric F ^a   Dance, David R ^b  

^a State University of New York Upstate Medical University: College of Medicine   (United States)

^b ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Digital mammography; Low contrast lesions; Observer performance; Structured background; X ray techniques

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENT TREATMENT; X RAY ANALYSIS;

DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; LOW CONTRAST LESIONS; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE; STRUCTURED BACKGROUND; X-RAY TECHNIQUES;

RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 12144280954     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.535672     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. LaVoy TR, Huda W, and Ogden K. "Radiographic techniques in screen-film mammography." Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 3 (2002) 248-254
2. Yaffe MJ Digital Mammography, Proceedings of the RSNA Categorical Course in Breast Imaging, Chicago IL (1999) 229-238.
3. Hendrick RE and Berns EA. Optimizing Mammographic Techniques. Proceedings of the RSNA Categorical Course in Breast Imaging, Chicago IL (1999) 79-89.
4. Huda W, Sajewicz A, Ogden KM, and Dance DR. "Dose and image quality in digital mammography". Medical Physics 30 (2003) 442-448.
5. Haus AG and Yaffe MJ.Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations. Radiologic Clinics of North America 38 (2000) 871-898.
6. Protection of the Patient in Diagnostic Radiology. ICRP Publication 34 Pergamon Press, Oxford (1982).
7. Huda W, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Park J, Hunt R, Dance DR. "How does lesion location affect detection performance in digital mammography?" SPIE Medical Imaging 5034 (2003) 242-252.
8. Burgess AE. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. Medical Physics 22 (1995) 643-655.
9. Burgess AE. Private communication.
10. Rose A. Vision: Human and electronic. Plenum Press, New York-London (1973)
11. th IWDM, UNC (2004).
12. Hatti V, Huda W, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Dudley EF, Roskopf ML. How does image display contrast affect low contrast lesion detection performance? MIPS Proceedings, Duke University (2003).
13. Huda W, Kissi HA, Ogden KM, Boone JM. "Optimizing the x-ray photon energy for digital radiographic imaging systems." SPIE Medical Imaging 4682 (2002) 633-644.
14. Medical Imaging-The Assessment of Image Quality. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 54 (1996).
15. Sajewicz A, Huda W, Hseuh D, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM. "Observer performance and radiographic technique factors in digital mammography." SPIE Medical Imaging 4686 (2002) 107-118.
16. Huda W, Ogden KM, Sajewicz ADance DR, Scalzetti EM. "Comparison of objective and subjective methods to assess imaging performance in digital mammography." IWDM 2002, Springer (Berlin, Germany) (2003) 142-144.
17. Burgess AE, Jacobsen FL, Judy PF. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Medical Physics 28 (2001) 419-437.
18. Kundel HL, Revesz G. Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error. AJR 126 (1976) 1233-1238.
19. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Thickman D, Carmody D, Toto L. Nodule detection with and without a chest image. Investigative Radiology 20 (1985) 94-99.