Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: A Monte Carlo study

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 52, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 3185-3199

  Koutalonis, M ^a   Delis, H ^a   Spyrou, G ^a,b   Costaridou, L ^a   Tzanakos, G ^c   Panayiotakis, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

^b BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (Greece)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCIFICATION (BIOCHEMISTRY); COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSIMETERS; IMAGE QUALITY; MONTE CARLO METHODS; TISSUE;

BREAST LESIONS; MAGNIFICATION MAMMOGRAPHY; MICROCALCIFICATIONS;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

ADIPOSE TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONTRAST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; FILTER; IMAGE QUALITY; MAGNIFICATION RADIOGRAPHY; MAMMARY GLAND; MAMMOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NOISE; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ABSORPTION; RADIATION DOSE; SIMULATION; X RAY PHOTOELECTRON SPECTROSCOPY;

BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 34249065873     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/11/017     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Boone M J and Cooper N V 2000 Scatter/primary in mammography: Monte Carlo validation Med. Phys. 27 1818-31
2. Boone M J, Lindfors K K, Cooper N V and Seibert J A 2000 Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results Med. Phys. 27 2408-16
3. Dance D R and Day G J 1983 The computation of scatter in mammography by Monte Carlo methods Phys. Med. Biol. 29 237-47
4. Dance D R, Thilander A K, Sandborg M, Skinner C L, Castellano I A and Carlsson G A 2000 Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study Br. J. Radiol. 73 1056-67
5. Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G and Panayiotakis G 2006 Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation Med. Phys. 33 4221-35
6. Delis H, Spyrou G, Panayiotakis G and Tzanakos G 2005a DOSIS: a Monte Carlo simulation program for dose related studies in mammography Eur. J. Radiol. 54 371-6
7. Delis H, Spyrou G, Tzanakos G and Panayiotakis G 2005b The influence of mammographic x-ray spectra on absorbed energy distribution in breast: Monte Carlo simulation studies Radiat. Meas. 39 149-55
8. Desponds L, Depeursinge C, Grecescu M, Samiri A and Valley F J 1991 Influence of anode and filter material on image quality and glandular dose for screen-film mammography Phys. Med. Biol. 36 1165-82
9. Doi K and Imhof H 1977 Noise reduction by radiographic magnification Radiology 122 479-87
10. Funke M, Breiter N, Hermann K, Oestmann J and Grabbe E 1998a Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography-a phantom study Br. J. Radiol. 71 528-34
11. Funke M, Breiter N, Hermann K-P, Oestmann J-W and Grabbe E 1998b Magnification survey and spot view mammography with a new microfocus x-ray unit: detail resolution and radiation exposure Eur. Radiol. 8 386-90
12. Hermann K P, Obenauer S, Funke M and Grabbe E H 2002 Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications Eur. Radiol. 12 2188-91
13. Kotre C J, Birch I P and Robson J K 2002 Anomalous image quality phantom scores in magnification mammography: evidence of phase contrast enhancement Br. J. Radiol. 75 170-3
14. Koutalonis M, Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G and Panayiotakis G 2006 Monte Carlo generated conversion factors for the estimation of average glandular dose in contact and magnification mammography Phys. Med. Biol. 51 5539-48
15. Liu B, Goodsitt M and Chan H 1995 Normalized average glandular dose in magnification mammography Radiology 197 27-32
16. McParland B 2000 Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography Br. J. Radiol. 73 1068-77
17. Muntz E P and Logan W W 1979 Focal spot size and scatter suppression in magnification mammography Am. J. Roentgenol. 133 453-9
18. Nishino K T, Wu X and Johnson F R Jr 2005 Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography Am. J. Roentgenol. 185 960-3
19. Sakellaropoulos P, Costaridou L and Panayiotakis G 1999 An image visualization tool in mammography Med. Inform. 24 53-73
20. Sickles E, Doi K and Genant H 1977 Magnification film mammography: image quality and clinical studies Radiology 125 69-76
21. Skubic E S and Fatouros P P 1989 The effect of breast composition on absorbed dose and image contrast Med. Phys. 16 544-51
22. Spyrou G, Panayiotakis G and Tzanakos G 2000 MASTOS: mammography simulation tool for design optimization studies Med. Inform. Internet Med. 25 275-93
23. Spyrou G, Tzanakos G, Bakas A and Panayiotakis G 1998 Monte Carlo generated mammograms: development and validation Phys. Med. Biol. 43 3341-57
24. Spyrou G, Tzanakos G, Nikiforides G and Panayiotakis G 2002 A Monte Carlo simulation model of mammographic imaging with x-ray sources of finite dimensions Phys. Med. Biol. 47 917-33
25. Tapiovaara J M and Wagner F R 1993 SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: I. A practical approach based on statistical decision theory Phys. Med. Biol. 38 71-92
26. Thilander-Klang C A, Ackerholm H P, Berlin C I, Bjurstam G N, Mattsson L S, Mansson G L, Von Scheele C and Thunberg J S 1997 Influence of anode/filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography Radiology 203 348-54