Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 520-526

  Yakabe, Mari ^a   Sakai, Shuji ^a   Yabuuchi, Hidetake ^a   Matsuo, Yoshio ^a   Kamitani, Takeshi ^a   Setoguchi, Taro ^a   Cho, Mayumi ^a   Masuda, Masafumi ^b   Sasaki, Masayuki ^a  

^a KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b Fujifilm Medical   (Japan)

Author keywords

computed radiography; Digital mammography; imaging; observer performance; phantoms; radiation dose; ROC based analysis

Indexed keywords

COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGING; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE; PHANTOMS; RADIATION DOSE; ROC-BASED ANALYSIS;

DOSIMETRY; LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY;

CALCIFICATION (BIOCHEMISTRY);

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST DISEASE; CALCINOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST DISEASES; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ROC CURVE;

EID: 77957868684     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-009-9203-y     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. ED Pisano C Gatsonis E Hendrick, et al. 2005 Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening N Engl J Med 353 1773 1783 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhtFKrtLnN 10.1056/NEJMoa052911 16169887 (Pubitemid 41549889)
2. P Skaane A Skjennald 2004 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 10.1148/radiol.2321031624 15155893 (Pubitemid 38787838)
3. P Skaane K Young A Skjennald 2003 Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I Study Radiology 229 877 884 10.1148/radiol.2293021171 14576447 (Pubitemid 37467596)
4. S Obenauer S Luftner-Nagel D von Heyden, et al. 2002 Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions Eur Radiol 12 1697 1702 1:STN:280: DC%2BD38zms1Ghuw%3D%3D 10.1007/s00330-001-1269-y 12111060 (Pubitemid 36940253)
5. EA Berns RE Hendrick GR Cutter 2002 Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice Med Phys 29 830 834 10.1118/1.1472497 12033579 (Pubitemid 34525912)
6. E Vigeland H Klaasen TA Klingen, et al. 2008 Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study Eur Radiol 18 183 191 10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y 17680246 (Pubitemid 351217291)
7. S Sakai H Yabuuchi Y Matsuo, et al. 2008 Integration of temporal subtraction and nodule detection system for digital chest radiographs into picture archiving and communication system (PACS): four-year experience J Digit Imaging 21 91 98 10.1007/s10278-007-9014-y 17333415 (Pubitemid 351326298)
8. ED Pisano MJ Yaffe 2005 Digital mammography Radiology 234 353 362 10.1148/radiol.2342030897 15670993 (Pubitemid 40139903)
9. A Noel F Thibault 2004 Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges Eur Radiol 14 1990 1998 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2crjtVGksg%3D%3D 10.1007/s00330-004-2446-6 15480692 (Pubitemid 39481167)
10. HK Weir MJ Thun BF Hankey, et al. 2003 Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control J Natl Cancer Inst 95 1276 1299 12953083
11. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/PDF/breast-screening.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2008
12. C Streffer International Commission on Radiation Protection 2007 The ICRP 2007 recommendations Radiat Prot Dosimetry 127 2 7 1:STN:280: DC%2BD1czjtVGrtA%3D%3D 10.1093/rpd/ncm246 17933786
13. CJ Lai CC Shaw GJ Whitman, et al. 2006 Receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of simulated microcalcifications on mammograms using hardcopy images Phys Med Biol 51 3901 3919 10.1088/0031-9155/51/16/002 16885614 (Pubitemid 44177397)
14. American College of Radiology. Practice guideline for determinations of image quality in digital mammography. Available at: http://www.acr.org/ SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality-safety/guidelines/breast/ image-quality-digital-mammo.aspx. Accessed November 21, 2008
15. T Kamitani H Yabuuchi H Soeda, et al. 2007 Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study Eur Radiol 5 1365 1371 10.1007/s00330-006-0452-6 (Pubitemid 46691968)
16. CE Metz 1978 Basic principles of ROC analysis Semin Nucl Med 8 283 298 1:STN:280:DyaE1M3kvVyltQ%3D%3D 10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2 112681
17. DD Dorfman KS Berbaum CE Metz 1992 Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method Invest Radiol 27 723 731 1:STN:280:DyaK3s%2FhsVOksg%3D%3D 10.1097/00004424-199209000-00015 1399456
18. W Huda AM Sajewicz KM Ogden, et al. 2003 Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system Med Phys 30 442 448 10.1118/1.1543572 12674245 (Pubitemid 36337111)
19. RS Saunders Jr JA Baker DM Delong, et al. 2007 Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance Med Phys 34 3971 3981 10.1118/1.2776253 17985642 (Pubitemid 47482898)
20. E Samei RS Saunders Jr JA Baker, et al. 2007 Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance Radiology 243 396 404 10.1148/radiol.2432061065 17356178 (Pubitemid 46649694)
21. AS Chawla E Samei R Saunders, et al. 2007 Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis Med Phys 34 3385 3398 10.1118/1.2756607 17879801 (Pubitemid 47175804)
22. RE Bird TW Wallace BC Yankaskas 1992 Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography Radiology 184 613 617 1:STN:280:DyaK38zns1WksQ%3D%3D 1509041
23. M Ruschin P Timberg M Båth, et al. 2007 Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies Med Phys 34 400 407 10.1118/1.2405324 17388156 (Pubitemid 46185118)
24. S Obenauer KP Hermann E Grabbe, et al. 2003 Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study Br J Radiol 76 478 482 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3szislKrtQ%3D%3D 10.1259/bjr/67597156 12857708 (Pubitemid 36903363)
25. B Hemdal I Andersson A Grahn, et al. 2005 Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114 383 388 1:STN:280: DC%2BD2M3ovVKgsQ%3D%3D 10.1093/rpd/nch555 15933142 (Pubitemid 40883715)
26. FO Bochud JF Valley FR Verdun, et al. 1999 Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds Med Phys 26 1365 1370 1:STN:280: DyaK1MzmtFyqsA%3D%3D 10.1118/1.598632 10435539 (Pubitemid 29334805)
27. T Svahn B Hemdal M Ruschin, et al. 2007 Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom Br J Radiol 80 557 562 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2svoslSqsw%3D%3D 10.1259/bjr/29933797 17704316 (Pubitemid 47343083)