Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies

Medical Physics

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 1435-1441

  Chen, Lin ^a   Abbey, Craig K ^b   Nosrateih, Anita ^a   Lindfors, Karen K ^c   Boone, John M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer; breast tomosynthesis; computed tomography; mammography

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DISEASES; MAMMOGRAPHY; PLASMA DIAGNOSTICS; POWER SPECTRUM;

BREAST CANCER; BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DERIVED PARAMETERS; DETECTION PERFORMANCE; IMAGING MODALITY; REGIONS OF INTEREST; SPECIFIC FREQUENCIES; TOTAL NOISE POWER;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

EID: 84863230010     PISSN: 00942405     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1118/1.3685462     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. D. S. M. Buist, Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States., Radiology 259 (1), 72-84 (2011). 10.1148/radiol.10101698
2. U. S. P. S. T. Force, Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement., Ann. Intern. Med. 151 (10), 716-726 (2009).
3. B. N. Hellquist, Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years., Cancer 117 (4), 714-722 (2011). 10.1002/cncr.v117.4
4. FH01 collaborative teams, Mammographic surveillance in women younger than 50 years who have a family history of breast cancer: Tumour characteristics and projected effect on mortality in the prospective, single-arm, FH01 study., Lancet Oncol. 11 (12), 1127-1134 (2010). 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70263-1
5. F. D. A. approval letter, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-Approved Devices/ucm246400.htm. Last accessed February 11, 2011.
6. J. M. Boone and K. K. Lindfors, Breast CT: Potential for breast cancer screening and diagnosis., Future Oncol. 2 (3), 351-356 (2006). 10.2217/14796694.2.3.351
7. J. M. Boone, N. Shah, and T. R. Nelson, A comprehensive analysis of DgN(CT) coefficients for pendant-geometry cone-beam breast computed tomography., Med. Phys. 31 (2), 226-235 (2004). 10.1118/1.1636571
8. J. M. Boone, A. Kwan, K. Yang, G. Burkett, K. Lindfors, and T. Nelson, Computed tomography for imaging the breast., J Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 11 (2), 103-111 (2006). 10.1007/s10911-006-9017-1
9. B. Chen and R. Ning, Cone-beam volume CT breast imaging: Feasibility study., Med Phys. 29 (5), 755-770 (2002). 10.1118/1.1461843
10. S. J. Glick, Breast CT., Ann. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 9 (1), 501-526 (2007). 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.9.060906.151924
11. F. O. Bochud, F. R. Verdun, J. F. Valley, C. Hessler, and R. Moeckli, Importance of Anatomical Noise in Mammography (SPIE, 1997), Vol. 3036.
12. F. O. Bochud, J. F. Valley, F. R. Verdun, C. Hessler, and P. Schnyder, Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds., Med. Phys. 26 (7), 1365-1370 (1999). 10.1118/1.598632
13. A. Burgess, F. Jacobson, and P. Judy, On the difficulty of detecting tumors in mammograms., Information Processing in Medical Imaging, edited by, M. Insana, and, R. Leahy, (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2001), Vol. 2082, pp. 1-11.
14. A. E. Burgess, Mammographic Structure: Data preparation and spatial statistics analysis. Proc. SPIE 3661, 314 (1999).
15. A. E. Burgess, F. L. Jacobson, and P. F. Judy, Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise., Med. Phys. 28 (4), 419-437 (2001). 10.1118/1.1355308
16. K. G. Metheany, C. K. Abbey, N. Packard, and J. M. Boone, Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images., Med. Phys.; 35 (10), 4685-4694 (2008). 10.1118/1.2977772
17. A. E. Burgess and P. F. Judy, Signal detection in power-law noise: Effect of spectrum exponents., J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 24 (12), B52-B60 (2007). 10.1364/JOSAA.24.000B52
18. J. J. Heine and R. P. Velthuizen, Spectral analysis of full field digital mammography data., Med Phys. 29 (5), 647-661 (2002). 10.1118/1.1445410
19. P. Bakic, B. Lau B, A.-K. Carton, I. Reiser, A. Maidment, and R. Nishikawa, An Anthropomorphic software breast phantom for tomosynthesis simulation: Power spectrum analysis of phantom Projections., Digital Mammography, edited by, J. Mart, A. Oliver, J. Freixenet, and, R. Mart, (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2010), Vol 6136, pp. 452-458.
20. E. Engstrom, I. Reiser, and R. Nishikawa, Comparison of power spectra for tomosynthesis projections and reconstructed images., Med. Phys. 36 (5), 1753-1758 (2009). 10.1118/1.3116774
21. K. K. Lindfors, J. M. Boone, T. R. Nelson, K. Yang, A. L. C. Kwan, and D. F. Miller, Dedicated breast CT: Initial clinical experience., Radiology 246 (3), 725-733 (2008). 10.1148/radiol.2463070410
22. A. L. C. Kwan, J. M. Boone, K. Yang, and S.-Y. Huang, Evaluation of the spatial resolution characteristics of a cone-beam breast CT scanner. Med. Phys. 34 (1), 275-281 (2007). 10.1118/1.2400830
23. K. Yang, A. L. Kwan, S. Y. Huang, N. J. Packard, and J. M. Boone, Noise power properties of a cone-beam CT system for breast cancer detection., Med. Phys. 35 (12), 5317-5327 (2008). 10.1118/1.3002411
24. N. D. Prionas, Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: Initial clinical experience., Radiology 256 (3), 714-723 (2010). 10.1148/radiol.10092311
25. D. Gur, Digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study., Am. J. Roentgenol. 193 (2), 586-591 (2009). 10.2214/AJR.08.2031
26. X. Gong, S. J. Glick, B. Liu, A. A. Vendula, and S. Thacker, A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging., Med. Phys. 33 (4), 1041 (2006). 10.1118/1.2174127