Improved in-plane visibility of tumors using breast tomosynthesis

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 6510, Issue PART 1, 2007, Pages

  Ruschin, Mark ^a   Timberg, Pontus ^a   Svahn, Tony ^a   Andersson, Ingvar ^a   Hemdal, Bengt ^a   Mattsson, Sören ^a   Båth, Magnus ^b   Tingberg, Anders ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Alternative forced choice; Detection; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL IMAGING; PATIENT TREATMENT;

ALTERNATIVE FORCED CHOICE; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; SIGNAL INTENSITY;

TUMORS;

EID: 35148899751     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.707935     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D'Orsi C, Jong R, and Rebner M. "Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening," N Engl J Med 353, 1773-1783, 2005.
2. Skaane P, and Skjennald A. "Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-the Oslo II Study," Radiology 232, 197-204, 2004.
3. Bochud FO, Valley JF, Verdun FR, Hessler C, and Schnyder P. "Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds," Med Phys 26, 1365-1370, 1999.
4. Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, and Judy PF. "Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise," Med Phys 28, 419-437, 2001.
5. Chawla A, Saunders R, Abbey CK, Delong D, and Samei E. "Analyzing the effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions using mathematical observer models," Proc SPIE 6146, 2006.
6. Ruschin M, Timberg P, Båth M, Hemdal B, Svahn T, Saunders R, Samei E, Andersson I, Mattsson S, Chakraborty DP, and Tingberg A. "Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies," Accepted for publication in Medical Physics 2006.
7. Svahn T, Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Chakraborty D, Tingberg A, Andersson I, and Mattsson S. "Possibility of absorbed dose reduction and its influence on radiation risk estimates in digital mammography: An anthropomorphic breast phantom JAFROC study," Accepted for publication in the British Journal of Radiology 2006.
8. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, Landberg CE, Slanetz PJ, Giardino AA, Moore R, Albagli D, DeJuIe MC, Fitzgerald PF, Fobare DF, Giambattista BW, Kwasnick RF, Liu J, Lubowski SJ, Possin GE, Richotte JF, Wei CY, and Wirth RF. "Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging," Radiology 205, 399-406, 1997.
9. Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, McCauley T, Phillips W, Kopans DB, Moore RH, Eberhard JW, Opsahl-Ong B, Niklason L, and Williams MB. "Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images," Med Phys 30, 365-380, 2003.
10. Smith AP, Niklason L, Ren B, Wu T, Ruth C, and Jing Z, "Lesion visibility in low dose tomosynthesis." In: Eds. Astley SM, Brady M, Rose C, and Zwiggelaar R, Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on digital mammography, IWDM. Manchester, UK: Springer verlag Berlin, 160-166, 2006.
11. Varjonen M, "Three-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis in the early diagnosis and detection of breast cancer." In: Eds. Astley SM, Brady M, Rose C, and Zwiggelaar R, Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on digital mammography, IWDM. Manchester, UK: Springer verlag Berlin, 152-159, 2006.
12. Gong X, Glick SJ, Liu B, Vedula AA, and Thacker S. "A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging," Med Phys 33, 1041-1052, 2006.
13. Bissonnette M, Hansroul M, Masson E, Savard S, Cadieux S, Warmoes P, Gravel D, Agopyan J, Polischuk B, Haerer W, Mertelmeier T, Lo JY, Chen Y, Dobbins III JT, Jesneck JL, and Singh S. "Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector," Proc SPIE 5745, 529-540, 2005.
14. Mertelmeier T, Orman J, Haerer W, and Dudam MK. "Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis device," Proc SPIE 6142, 131-142, 2006.
15. Orman J, Mertelmeier T, and Haerer W, "Adaptation of image quality using various filter setups in the filtered backprojection approach for digital breast tomosynthesis." In: Eds. Astley SM, Brady M, Rose C, and Zwiggelaar R, Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on digital mammography, IWDM. Manchester, UK: Springer verlag Berlin, 175-182, 2006.
16. Ruschin M, Tingberg A, Båth M, Grahn A, Håkansson M, Hemdal B, and Andersson I. "Using simple mathematical functions to simulate pathological structures-input for digital mammography clinical trial," Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114, 424-431, 2005.
17. Saunders R, Samei E, Baker J, and Delong D. "Simulation of mammographic lesions," Acad Radiol 13, 860-870, 2006.
18. "NEMA Standards Publications PS 3.14. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function.," National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2101 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20037 1998.
19. Eckstein MP, Abbey CK, and Bochud FO. "Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses," J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 17, 206-217, 2000.
20. Burgess AE. "Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods," Med Phys 22, 643-655, 1995.
21. Burgess AE, and Ghandeharian H. "Visual signal detection. II. Signal-location identification," J Opt Soc Am A 1, 906-910, 1984.
22. Huda W, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Dance DR, and Bertrand EA. "How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography?," Acad Radiol 13, 1355-1366, 2006.