Comparison of tissue equalization, and premium view post-processing methods in full field digital mammography

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 73-80

  Chen, Baoying ^a   Wang, Wei ^a   Huang, Jin ^a   Zhao, Ming ^a   Cui, Guangbin ^a   Xu, Jing ^b   Guo, Wei ^a   Du, Pang ^a   Li, Pei ^a   Yu, Jun ^b  

^a FOURTH MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b FOURTH MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Breast; Comparative study; Digital mammography; Premium view; Tissue equalization

Indexed keywords

BENIGN LESION; BREAST; CLINICAL INFORMATION; COMPARATIVE STUDIES; CONSPICUITY; DETECTABILITY; DIAGNOSTIC ABILITY; DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAMS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; END POINTS; ETHICAL STANDARDS; ETHICS COMMITTEE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGE INTERPRETATION; MALIGNANT LESION; MEAN AGES; POSTPROCESSING METHODS; PREMIUM VIEW; WILCOXON SIGNED RANK TEST;

IMAGE ANALYSIS; PROCESSING; TISSUE; VISUALIZATION;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST DISEASE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 77957553846     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.010     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. A.L. Meisner, M.H. Fekrazad, and M.E. Royce Breast disease: benign and malignant Med Clin North Am 92 2008 1115 1141
2. S.R. Pollei, F.A. Mettler Jr., S.A. Bartow, G. Moradian, and M. Moskowitz Occult breast cancer: prevalence and radiographic detectability Radiology 163 1987 459 462
3. L.J. Warren Burhenne, S.A. Wood, and C.J. D'Orsi Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography Radiology 215 2000 554 562
4. M.B. Williams, P. Raghunathan, and M.J. More Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography Med Phys 35 2008 2414 2423
5. E.D. Pisano, J. Chandramouli, and B.M. Hemminger The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting J Digit Imag 10 1997 174 182
6. E.D. Pisano, J. Chandramouli, and B.M. Hemminger Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms? J Digit Imag 10 1997 79 84
7. E.B. Cole, E.D. Pisano, and E.O. Kistner Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type Radiology 226 2003 153 160
8. V. Singh, C. Saunders, L. Wylie, and A. Bourke New diagnostic techniques for breast cancer detection Future Oncol 4 2008 501 513
9. N.M. Perry, P.C. Allgood, S.E. Milner, K. Mokbel, and S.W. Duffy Mammographic breast density by area of residence: possible evidence of higher density in urban areas Curr Med Res Opin 24 2008 365 368
10. C.L. Benetti-Pinto, P.M. Soares, L.A. Magna, C.A. Petta, and C.C. Dos Santos Breast density in women with premature ovarian failure using hormone therapy Gynecol Endocrinol 24 2008 40 43
11. American College of Radiology Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 4th ed. 2003 American College of Radiology Reston, VA
12. C. Varela, S. Timp, and N. Karssemeijer Use of border information in the classification of mammographic masses Phys Med Biol 51 2006 425 441
13. N.F. Boyd, L.J. Martin, and J.M. Rommens Mammographic density: a heritable risk factor for breast cancer Methods Mol Biol 472 2009 343 360
14. S. Obenauer, C. Sohns, C. Werner, and E. Grabbe Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography J Digit Imag 19 2006 258 263
15. M.T. Mandelson, N. Oestreicher, and P.L. Porter Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers J Natl Cancer Inst 92 2000 1081 1087