Evaluation of the global effect of anatomical background on microcalcifications detection

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 6515, Issue , 2007, Pages

  Zanca, Federica ^a   Van Ongeval, Chantal ^a   Jacobs, Jurgen ^a   Pöyry, Paula ^b   Marchal, Guy ^a   Bosmans, Hilde ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b STUK RADIATION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY AUTHORITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Anatomical background; Digital mammography; Microcalcification morphology; Observer performance; Simulation

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; CALCIFICATION (BIOCHEMISTRY); COMPUTER SIMULATION; NEEDLES; RADIOLOGY; VACUUM APPLICATIONS;

ANATOMICAL BACKGROUND; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; MICROCALCIFICATION MORPHOLOGY; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE;

IMAGE ANALYSIS;

EID: 35148890346     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.708322     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Brinton LA. Lacey JV Jr, Devesa SS. Recent trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality. Environ Mol Mutagen., 39(2-3):82-8, 2002.
2. Denise R. Aberle et al. Imaging and cancer: Research strategy of the American College of Radiology imaging network. Radiology, (235):741-751, 2005.
3. C. J. D'Orsi and D. B. Kopans. Mammographic feature analysis. Semin Roentgenol, XXVIII:204230, 1993.
4. L. Tabar and P. B. Dean. Teaching atlas of mammography. Thieme Verlag.Stuttgart, 1983.
5. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC "Analysis of Cancer Missed at Screening Mammography." Radiology 184:613-617, 1992
6. Reiser I, Nishikawa R, "Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic background", Med.Phys. 33 (8), August 2006, 2905-2911.
7. Neitzel U, Pralow T, Schaefr-Prokop C, Prokop M. "Influence of Scatter Reduction on Lesion Signal-to-Noise Ration and Lesion Detection in Digital Chest Radiography.", Proc. SPIE 3336, 1998, pp. 337-347
8. Bouchud FO, Verdun FR, Valley JF, Hessler C, Moeckli R. "Importance of anatomical Noise in Mammography" Proc. SPIE 3036, 1997,pp.74-80
9. Carton AK, Development and validation of a simulation procedure to study the visibility of microcalcifications in digital mammograms, Med. Phys., 30(8):2234-2240, 2003.
10. Carton AK, "Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full-field digitalmammograms", Med. Phys., 31(7):2165-2176, 2004.
11. Le Gal M., Chavanne G., Pellier D." Diagnostic value of clustered microcalcifications discovered by mammography", Bull Cancer. 1984;71(1):57-64.
12. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). Reston, American College of Radiology; 2003. All rights reserved.
13. Zanca F., Jacobs J., Pöyry P., Van Ongeval C., Carton A-K, Deprez T., Marchal G., Bosmans H., Proc. SPIE Feb 11-16, 2006, vol. 6146, poster 614615
14. Rosslyn, Va, "Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) part 14: gray scale standard display function, NEMA PS 3", National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2000.
15. Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen JH. "Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data". Stat Med 1998; 17:1033-1053.
16. Metz CE: Some Practical Issues of Experimental Design and Data Analysis in Radiologic ROC Studies. Investigative Radiology, 24: 234-245, 1989.
17. Dev P. Chakraborty, PhD Eamann S. Breatnach, MD Michael V. Yester, PhD, Soto, MD Gary T. Barnes, PhD Robert G. Fraser, MD, "Digital and Conventional Chest Imaging: A Modified ROC Study of Observer Performance Using Simulated Nodules' "Radiology, 1986(158):35-39, 1986
18. Dev P. Chakraborty, "Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristics (FROC) data3, Med. Phys. 16 (4) Jul/Augu 1989.
19. Dev P. Chaknaborty, PhD, Lock H. L Winter, MD, Free-Response Methodology: Alternate Analysis and a New Observer-Performance Experiment', Radiology 1990; 174:873-881
20. Chakraborty, D. P. and K. S. Berbaum (2004). "Observer studies involving detection and localization: Modeling, analysis and validation." Medical Physics 31(8): 2313-2330.
21. Zheng B, Chakraborty DP, Rockette HE, Maitz GS, Gur D. A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using Jackknife ROC and JAFROC. Medical Physics 2005; 32:1031-1034.
22. Chakraborty DP. "Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method". Accad Radiol. 2006:in press.
23. Chakraborty DP. A search model and figure of merit for observer data acquired according to the free-response paradigm. Phys. Med. Biol. 2006; 51:3449-3462.
24. Chakraborty DP. ROC Curves predicted by a model of visual search. Phys. Med. Biol. 2006; 51:3463-348.
25. B. Efron, in The Jacknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans, (SIAM,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1982).
26. Lefebvre F. et al. A simulation model for clustered microcalcifications. Med. Phys., 21(12): 1865(1874, December 1994.
27. Kallergi M, Gavrielides MA, He L, et al. Simulation model of mammographie calcifications based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, or BIRADS. Acad Radiol 1998; 5:670-679.
28. Burgess AE, Chakraborty S. Producing lesions for hybrid mammograms: extracted tumours and simulated microcalcifications. Proc SPIE 1999; 3663:316.
29. Nappi J et al. Algoritmic 3d simulation of breast calcifications for digital mammography. Computed Method and Programs in Biomedicine, 66:115 {124, 2001.
30. Chao-Jean Lai et al. Visibility of simulated microcalcifications: a hard-copy based comparison to three mammographie systems. Med. Phys., 32(1): 182-94, 2005.
31. Robert Saunders, Ehsan Samei, Jay Baker, David Delong, Simulation of Mammographic Lesions, J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783.
32. Lany M. Mammography diagnosis and pathological analysis, Springer 2003.