Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: Effect of pixel size

Radiology

Volumn 244, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 130-137

  Suryanarayanan, Sankararaman ^a,b   Karellas, Andrew ^a,b   Vedantham, Srinivasan ^a   Sechopoulos, Ioannis ^a,b   D'Orsi, Carl J ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Emory University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; THICKNESS;

EID: 34250902518     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2441060977     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783.
2. Ikeda DM, Andersson I. Ductal carcinoma in situ: atypical mammographic appearances. Radiology 1989;172:661-666.
3. Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989;172:235-241.
4. Stomper PC, Connolly JL. Mammographic features predicting an extensive intraductal component in early-stage infiltrating ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:269-272.
5. Kinkel K, Gilles R, Feger C, et al. Focal areas of increased opacity in ductal carcinoma in situ of the comedo type: mammographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994;192:443-446.
6. Berg WA, Arnoldus CL, Teferra K, Bhargavan M. Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 2001;221:495-503.
7. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, et al. Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys 2000;27:558-567.
8. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S. Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 2004;533:560-570.
9. Saunders PS Jr, Samei K, Jesneck JL, Lo JY. Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. Med Phys 2005;32:588-599.
10. Tesic MM, Fisher Piccaro M, Munier B. Full field digital mammography scanner. Eur J Radiol 1999;31:2-17.
11. Aslund M, Cederstrom B, Lundqvist M, Danielsson M. Scatter rejection in scanned multislit digital mammography. In: Yaffe MJ, Flynn MJ, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2004 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 5368. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 2004; 478-487.
12. Hemdal B, Herrnsdorf L, Andersson I, Bengtsson C, Heddson B, Olsson M. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra Micro Dose mammography unit. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:436-443.
13. Seibert JA, Boone JM, Cooper VN, Lindfors KK. Cassette-based digital mammography. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2004;3:413-427.
14. Cowen AR, Launders JH, Jadav M, Brettle DS. Visibility of microcalcilications in computed and screen-film mammography. Phys Med Biol 1997;42:1533-1548.
15. Bong XJ, Shaw CC, Johnston DA, et al. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel CCD, CR, and sereen/film. Med Phys 2002;29:2052-2061.
16. Yamada T, Ishibashi T, Sato A, et al. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization. Radiat Med 2003;21:166-171.
17. Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Andersson I, et al. Threshold pixel size for shape determination of microcalcifications in digital mammography: a pilot study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:415-423.
18. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Onishi SK. High-resolution imager for digital mammography: physical characterization of a prototype sensor. Phys Med Biol 2005;50:3957-3969.
19. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Sechopoulos I. Theoretical analysis of high-resolution digital mammography. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:3041-3055.
20. Thijssen MAO, Biijerk KR, Lindeyer JM, Project: quality assurance in mammography (QAMAM). Nijmegen, the Netherlands: University Medical Centre Nijmegen.
21. Veldkamp WJ, Thijssen MA, Karssemeijer N. The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography. Med Phys 2003;30:1712-1718.
22. Burgess AE. Effect of detector element size on signal detect ability in digital mammography. In: Flynn MJ, ed. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2005 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 5745. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005; 232-242.
23. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Ved H, Baker SP, D'Orsi CJ. Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images. Radiology 2002;225:801-807.
24. Ohara K, Doi K, Metz CE, Giger ML. Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. XIII. Effect of simple structured noise on the detectability of simulated stenotic lesions. Med Phys 1989;16:14-21.
25. Aufrichtig R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Med Phys 1999;26:1349-1358.
26. Veldkamp WJ, Kroft IJ, Mertens BJ, Geleijns J. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study. Radiology 2005;235:857-866.
27. Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M. Skeletal applications for flat-panel versus storage-phosphor radiography: effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details. Radiology 2004;231:506-514.
28. Hall TJ, Insana MF, Harrison LA, Soller NM, Schlehr KJ. Ultrasound contrast-detail analysis: a comparison of low-contrast delegability among scanhead designs. Med Phys 1995;22:1117-1125.
29. Cohen G, Wagner LK, Amtey SR, Di Bianca FA. Contrast-detail-dose and dose efficiency analysis of a scanning digital and a sereen-film-grid radiographic system. Med Phys 1981;8:358-367.
30. Aufrichtig R, Xue P. Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 2000;45:2653-2669.
31. Chotas HG, Ravin CE. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy. Radiology 2001;218:679-682.
32. Verdun FR, Denys A, Valley JF, Schnyder P, Meuli RA. Detection of low-contrast, objects: experimental comparison of single- and multi- detector row CT with a phantom. Radiology 2002;223:426-431.
33. Cook LT, Insana MF, McFadden MA, Hall TJ, Cox GG. Comparison of the low-contrast detectability of a screen-film system and third generation computed radiography. Med Phys 1994;21:691-695.
34. Wang J, Anderson J, Lane T, Stetson C, Moore J. Contrast-detail characteristic evaluations of several display devices. J Digit Imaging 2000;13(2 suppl 1):162-167.
35. Wang J, Langer S. A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 1997;10:158-168.
36. Chakraborty DP, Eckert MP. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images. Med Phys 1995;22:133-143.
37. Chan HP, Lo SC, Niklason LT, Ikeda DM, Lam KL. Image compression in digital mammography: effects on computerized detection of subtle microcalcifications. Med Phys 1996;23:1325-1336.
38. Burgess AE. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. Med Phvs 1995;22:643-655.