Research in digital mammography and tomosynthesis at the University of Toronto

Radiological Physics and Technology

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 191-202

  Yaffe, Martin J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Digital imaging; Digital pathology; Image quality; Imaging research; Mammography; Tomosynthesis

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANADA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EVALUATION RESEARCH; HUMAN; IMAGE INTENSIFIER; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; PATHOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES; REVIEW; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOSYNTHESIS; VOLUMETRY; X RAY DETECTOR; BREAST; CYTOLOGY; DEVICES; MAMMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; RESEARCH; UNIVERSITY;

BREAST; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RESEARCH; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84904437746     PISSN: 18650333     EISSN: 18650341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12194-014-0277-y     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Burger GCE. The perceptibility of details in roentgen examinations of the lung. Acta Radiol Diag. 1949;31:193-222.
2. Chamberlain WE. Fluoroscopes and fluoroscopy. Radiology. 1942;38:383-412.
3. Coltman JW. Fluoroscopic image brightening by electronic means. Radiology. 1948;51:359-67.
4. Rossmann K. Image quality. Radiol Clin N Am. 1969;7:419-34.
5. Schade OH, Sr. Image quality: a comparison of photographic and television systems. J SMPTE. 1987;96:567-648. doi:10.5594/J03153.
6. Rose A. Quantum effects in human vision. Adv Electron Electron Phys. 1948;1:131-66.
7. Cleare HM. General physics of x-ray film-screen-process speed and contrast characteristics. Proc. SPIE 0056, medical X-ray photo-optical systems evaluation, 4 (May 1, 1974). doi:10.1117/12.954262.
8. Shaw R. The equivalent quantum efficiency of the photographic process. J Photogr Sci. 1963;11:199-204.
9. Yaffe M, Taylor KW, Johns HE. Spectroscopy of diagnostic x rays by a Compton-scatter method. Med Phys. 1976;3(5):328-34.
10. Johns PC, Yaffe MJ. X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues. Phys Med Biol. 1987;32(6):675-95.
11. Yaffe MJ, Johns PC. Scattered radiation in diagnostic radiology: magnitudes, effects, and methods of reduction. J Appl Photogr Eng. 1983;9:184-95.
12. Nishikawa RM, Yaffe MJ. Signal-to-noise properties of mammographic film-screen systems. Med Phys. 1985;12(1):32-9.
13. Yaffe MJ, Johns PC, Nishikawa RM, Mawdsley GE, Caldwell CB. Anthropomorphic radiologic phantoms. Radiology. 1986;158(2):550-2.
14. Nishikawa RM, Mawdsley GE, Fenster A, Yaffe MJ. Scanned-projection digital mammography. Med Phys. 1987;14(5):717-27.
15. Maidment AD, Yaffe MJ. Analysis of signal propagation in optically coupled detectors for digital mammography: II. Lens and fibre optics. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41(3):475-93.
16. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D'Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening - the results of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). NEJM, 2005; 353:1773-1783.
17. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Mawdsley GE, Bright S, Shen SZ, Mahesh M, Nickoloff EL, Fleischman RC, Williams MB, Maidment ADA, Beideck DJ, Och J, Seibert JA. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST Trial-Part I. Med Phys. 2006;33(4):719-36.
18. Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist A, Mawdsley GE, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Fajardo LL, Boone JM, Kanal K, Mahesh M, Fleischman RC, Och J, Williams MB, Beideck DJ, Maidment ADA. Quality control for digital mammography: part II recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial. Med Phys. 2006;33(3):737-52.
19. Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J. Tumour angiogenesis and metastasis: correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. New Engl J Med. 1991;324:1-7.
20. Chang J, Nesbit DE, Fisher DR, Fritz SJ, Dwyer SJ III, Templeton AW, Lin F, Jewel WR. Computed tomographic mammography using a conventional body scanner. Am J Roentgenol. 1982;138:553-8.
21. Hagay C, Cherel PJP, de Maulmount CE, Plantet M, Gilles R, Floiras JG, Garbay JR, Pallud CM. Contrast-enhanced CT: value for diagnosing local breast cancer recurrence after conservative treatment. Radiology. 1996;200:631-8.
22. Watt C, Ackerman LV, Shetty P, Burke M, Flynn MJ, Grodsinsky C, Fine G, Wilderman S. Differentiation between benign and malignant disease of the breast using digital subtraction angiography of the breast. Cancer. 1985;56:1287-92.
23. Heywang-Köbrunner S. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Invest Radiol. 1994;29:94-104.
24. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. Radiology. 1993;187:493-501.
25. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, Kempe A, Wardelmann E, Hocke A, Maringa M, Pfeifer U, Krebs K, Schild HH. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology. 2000;215:267-79.
26. Skarpathiotakis M, Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Rico D, Muller S, Rick A, Jeunehomme F. Development of contrast digital mammography. Med Phys. 2002;29(10):2419-26.
27. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak RS, Danjoux NM, Gunesekara A, Plewes DB. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003;228(3):842-50 (Epub 2003 Jul 24).
28. Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, McCauley T, Phillips W, Kopans DB, Moore RH, Eberhard JW, Opsahl-Ong B, Niklason L, et al. Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys. 2003;30:365-80.
29. Wu G, Mainprize JG, Boone JM, Yaffe MJ. Evaluation of scatter effects on image quality for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2009;36(10):4425-32.
30. Mainprize JG, Bloomquist AK, Wang XY, Yaffe MJ. Dependence of image quality on geometric factors in breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2011;38(6):3090-103.
31. Wu G, Mainprize JG, Yaffe MJ. Characterization of a constrained paired-view technique in Iterative reconstruction for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2013;40(10):101901. doi:10.1118/1.4819943.
32. Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, and Mainprize JG. Future developments in breast tomosynthesis. In: Reiser I, Glick S (eds) Tomosynthesis imaging. Imaging in medical diagnosis and therapy, Taylor & Francis, UK.
33. Desponds L, Depeursinge C, Grecescu M, Hessler C, Samiri A, Valley JF. Image quality index (IQI) for screen-film mammography. Phys Med Biol. 1991;36(1):19-33.
34. Barrett HH. Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability. J Opt Soc Am A. 1990;7:1266-78.
35. Hessler C, Depeursinge C, Grecescu M, Pachon Y, Raimo'ndi S, Valley JF. Objective assessment of mammography systems, part 1: method. Radiology. 1985;156:215-9.
36. Wagner RF, Myers KJ, Brown GD, Tapiovaara MJ, Burgess AE. Higher order tasks: human vs. machine performance. Proc SPIE. 1989;1090:183-194.
37. Barrett HH, Yao J, Rolland JP, Myers KJ. Model observers for assessment of image quality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993;90:9758-65.
38. North DO. An analysis of the factors which determine signal/noise discrimination in pulsed carrier systems. RCA Labs., Princeton, NJ, Rep. PTR-6C, 1963.
39. Judy PF, Swensson RG. Detectability of lesions of various sizes on CT images. Proc SPIE. 1985;535:38-42.
40. Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys. 2001;28(4):419-37.
41. Mainprize JG, Yaffe MJ. Cascaded analysis of signal and noise propagation through a heterogeneous breast model. Med Phys. 2010;37(10):5243-50.
42. Mainprize JG, Tyson AH, Yaffe MJ. The relationship between anatomic noise and volumetric breast density for digital mammography. Med Phys. 2012;39(8):4660-8.
43. Wang X, Mainprize JG, Wu G, Yaffe MJ. Wiener filter for filtered back projection in digital breast tomosynthesis. Proc SPIE. 2012; 8313:83134Z-83134Z.
44. Hill ML, Mainprize JG, Yaffe MJ. An observer model for lesion detectability in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. LNCS. 2010;6136:720-7.
45. Bloomquist AK, Mainprize JG, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ. A quality control framework using task-based detectability measurements for digital mammography. LNCS. 2012;7361:197-204.
46. Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Hunter DM, et al. Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program. Med Phys. 2013;40(12):121915.
47. Bloomquist A, Mainprize J, Yaffe M, Mawdsley G. Validating a quality control framework for digital mammography using task-based detectability measurements. Radiological Society of North America 2012 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; November 25-30, 2012 Chicago IL. rsna2012.rsna.org/search/ event-display.cfm?em-id=12033556. Accessed May 1, 2014.
48. Salvagnini E, Lemmens K, Bosmans H, Struelens L, Marshall NW. Model observer detectability as a substitute for contrast detail analysis in routine digital mammography quality control. Proc SPIE. 2013;8668:866821.
49. Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer. 1976;37:2486-92.
50. Caldwell CB, Stapleton SJ, Holdsworth DW, Jong RA, Weiser WJ, Cooke G, Yaffe MJ. Characterisation of mammographic parenchymal pattern by fractal dimension. Phys Med Biol. 1990;35(2):235-47.
51. Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39(10):1629-38.
52. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(9):670-5.
53. Palomares MR, Machia JRB, Lehman CD, Daling JR, McTiernan A. Mammographic density correlation with Gail model breast cancer risk estimates and component risk factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:1324.
54. Khan QJ, Kimler BF, Smith EJ, O'Dea AP, Sharma P, Fabian CJ. Correlation of mammographic breast density with Ki-67 expression in benign breast epithelial cells obtained by random periareolar fine needle aspiration of high risk women. J Clin Oncol. 1011;2006:24.
55. Highnam R, Brady M. Shepstone B: a representation for mammographic image processing. Med Image Anal. 1996;1:1-18.
56. Pawluczyk O, Augustine BJ, Yaffe MJ, Rico D, Yang J, Mawdsley GE, Boyd NF. A volumetric method for estimation of breast density on digitized screen-film mammograms. Med Phys. 2003;30(3):352-64.
57. Shephard JA, Kerlikowske KM, Smith-Bindman R, Genant HK, Cummings SR. Measurement of breast density with dual x-ray absorptiometry: feasibility. Radiology. 2002;223:554-7.
58. Kaufhold J, Thomas JA, Eberhard JW, Galbo CE, Trotter DE. A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography. Med Phys. 2002;29:1867-80.
59. Van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Huisman H, Boetes C, Karssemeijer N. Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:273-82.
60. Heine JJ, Carston MJ, Scott CG, Brandt KR, Wu F-F, Pankratz VS, Sellers TA, Vachon CM. An automated approach for estimation of breast density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2008;17(11):3090-7.
61. Alonzo Proulx O, Yaffe MJ. Validation of a method for measuring the volumetric breast density from digital mammograms. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(11):3027-44 Epub May 12. 2010.
62. Clarke GM, Peressotti C, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ. Design and characterization of a system for three-dimensional digital breast histopathology imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(20):5089-103.
63. Clarke GM, Zubovits JT, Shaikh KA, Wang D, Li Q, Dinn SR, Corwin AD, Santamaria-Pang A, Nofech-Mozes S, Pang Z. Cellular co-localization of Her2/neu, ER, PR and Ki-67 in triple-positive breast cancer using a novel multiplex imaging technology. Histopathology. 2014;64(2):242-55.