Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 83, Issue 991, 2010, Pages 569-577

  Koutalonis, M ^a   Delis, H ^b   Pascoal, A ^c   Spyrou, G ^b,d   Costaridou, L ^b   Panayiotakis, G ^b  

^a BARTS HEALTH NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

^c CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF PORTUGAL   (Portugal)

^d BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ELECTRONIC ZOOM; IMAGE INTENSIFIER; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNIFICATION RADIOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; TECHNIQUE;

BREAST DISEASES; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHIC MAGNIFICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77954461107     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/21753020     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Law J. Variations in individual radiation dose in a breast screening programme and consequences for the balance between associated risk and benefit. Br J Radiol 1993;66:691-8. (Pubitemid 23244587)
2. Law J, Faulkner K. Radiation benefit and risk at the assessment stage of the UK Breast Screening Programme. Br J Radiol 2006;79:479-82.
3. Law J. Breast dose from magnification films in mammography. Br J Radiol 2005;78:816-20.
4. Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Kontogiannis E, Gourtsoyiannis N. Film-screen magnification versus electronic magnification and enhancement of digitized contact mammograms in the assessment of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 2001;36:726-33.
5. Koutalonis M, Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Phys Med Biol 2007;52:3185-99.
6. Koutalonis M, Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Monte Carlo generated conversion factors for the estimation of average glandular dose in contact and magnification mammography. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:5539-48.
7. Liu B, Goodsitt M, Chan HP. Normalized average glandular dose in magnification mammography. Radiology 1995;197:27-32.
8. Koutalonis M, Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Monte Carlo studies on the influence of focal spot size and intensity distribution on spatial resolution in magnification mammography. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:1369-84.
9. Nickoloff LE, Donnelly E, Eve L, Atherton VJ, Asch T. Mammographic resolution: influence of focal spot intensity distribution and geometry. Med Phys 1990;17:436-47.
10. Sickles E, Doi K, Genant H. Magnification film mammography: image quality and clinical studies. Radiology 1977;125:69-76. (Pubitemid 8213528)
11. Vyborny CJ, Giger ML, Nishikawa M. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:725-39.
12. Pascoal A, Lawinski CP, Honey I, Blake P. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images - comparison with subjective visual assessment. Phys Med Biol 2005;50:5743-57.
13. Costaridou L, Skiadopoulos S, Sakellaropoulos P, Likaki E, Kalogeropoulou PC, Panayiotakis G. Evaluating the effect of a wavelet enhancement method in characterization of simulated lesions embedded in dense breast parenchyma. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1615-22.
14. Smathers LR, Bush E, Drace J, Stevens M, Sommer G, Brown W, Karras B. Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display. Radiology 1986;159:673-7. (Pubitemid 16040036)
15. Powell KA, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Barry MM, Ganobcik SN, Cardenosa G. Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:889-94.
16. Chan HP, Goodsitt MM, Hadjiiski LM, Bailey JE, Klein K, Darner KL, Sahiner B. Effects of magnification and zooming on depth perception in digital stereomammography: an observer performance study. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:3721-34.
17. Smith KC, Gold HR, Bassett WL, Gormley L, Morioka C. Diagnosis of breast calcifications: comparison of contact, magnified, and television-enhanced images. AJR 1989;153:963-7.
18. Kim MJ, Kim KE, Kwak YJ, Son JE, Youk HJ, Choi HS, Han M, Oh KK. Characterization of microcalcification: can digital monitor zooming replace magnification mammography in full-field digital mammography? Eur Radiol 2009;19:310-7.
19. Kim MJ, Youk JH, Kang DR, Choi SH, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Kim K-E. Zooming method (x2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 2010;83:486-92.
20. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1697-1702.
21. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Funke M, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming. Radiology 2002;42:261-4.
22. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piquet JC, Young K, Niklason LT. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-observer performance study. Radiology 2005;237:37-44.
23. Gurvich VA. Statistical approach for image quality evaluation in daily medical practice. Med Phys 2000;27:94-100.
24. Spyrou G, Tzanakos G, Bakas A, Panayiotakis G. Monte Carlo generated mammograms: development and validation. Phys Med Biol 1998;43:3341-57.
25. Spyrou G, Panayiotakis G, Tzanakos G. MASTOS: mammography simulation tool for design optimization studies. Med Inform Internet Med 2000;25:275-93.
26. Spyrou G, Tzanakos G, Nikiforides G, Panayiotakis G. A Monte Carlo simulation model of mammographic imaging with X-ray sources of finite dimensions. Phys Med Biol 2002;47:917-33. (Pubitemid 34269537)
27. Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Phys 2006;33:4221-35.
28. Sakellaropoulos P, Costaridou L, Panayiotakis G. An image visualization tool in mammography. Med Inf (Lond) 1999;24:53-73.
29. Sorenson J, Floch J. Scatter rejection by air gaps: an empirical model. Med Phys 1985;12:308-16.
30. Lehmann M T, Gonner C, Spitzer K. Survey: interpolation methods in medical image processing. IEEE Trans Med Im 1999;18:1049-75.
31. Thevenaz P, Blu T, Unser M. Interpolation revisited. IEEE Trans Med Im 2000;19:739-58.
32. Tapiovaara JM, Wagner FR. SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: a practical approach based on statistical decision theory. Phys Med Biol 1993;38:71-92.