Visibility of microcalcifications in computed and screen-film mammography.

Due to the clinically and technically demanding nature of breast x-ray imaging, mammography still remains one of the few essentially film-based radiological imaging techniques in modern medical imaging. There are a range of possible benefits available if a practical and economical direct digital imaging technique can be introduced to routine clinical practice. There has been much debate regarding the minimum specification required for direct digital acquisition. One such direct digital system available is computed radiography (CR), which has a modest specification when compared with modern screen-film mammography (SFM) systems. This paper details two psychophysical studies in which the detection of simulated microcalcifications with CR has been directly compared to that with SFM. The first study found that under scatter-free conditions the minimum detectable size of microcalcification was approximately 130 microns for both SFM and CR. The second study found that SFM had a 4.6% higher probability of observers being able to correctly identify the shape of 350 microns diameter test details; there was no significant difference for-either larger or smaller test details. From the results of these studies it has been demonstrated that the modest specification of CR, in terms of limiting resolution, does not translate into a dramatic difference in the perception of details at the limit of detectability. When judging the imaging performance of a system it is more important to compare the signal-to-noise ratio transfer spectrum characteristics, rather than simply the modulation transfer function.

[1]  M T Freedman,et al.  Image processing in digital radiography. , 1997, Seminars in roentgenology.

[2]  D. C. Barber,et al.  Medical Imaging-The Assessment of Image Quality , 1996 .

[3]  G. J. S. Parkin Clinical aspects of Direct digital mammography , 1995, Journal of digital imaging.

[4]  R. Wahl,et al.  New methods for imaging the breast: techniques, findings, and potential. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  A R Cowen,et al.  Dual-energy digital mammography utilizing stimulated phosphor computed radiography. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  A R Cowen,et al.  Physical evaluation of computed radiography as a mammographic X-ray imaging system. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  K L Lam,et al.  Digitization requirements in mammography: effects on computer-aided detection of microcalcifications. , 1994, Medical physics.

[8]  Matthew T. Freedman,et al.  Image processing in digital mammography , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[9]  A R Cowen,et al.  A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  G G Cox,et al.  Comparison of the low-contrast detectability of a screen-film system and third generation computed radiography. , 1994, Medical physics.

[11]  M. Giger,et al.  Computer vision and artificial intelligence in mammography. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  D B Plewes,et al.  Observer performance and dose efficiency of mammographic scanning equalization radiography. , 1993, Medical physics.

[13]  Anthony Giles,et al.  Clinical workstation for digital mammography , 1993, Electronic Imaging.

[14]  N Karssemeijer,et al.  Spatial Resolution in Digital Mammography , 1993, Investigative radiology.

[15]  A R Cowen,et al.  A preliminary investigation of the imaging performance of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography using a new design of mammographic quality control test object. , 1992, The British journal of radiology.

[16]  Y. Higashida,et al.  Detection of subtle microcalcifications: comparison of computed radiography and screen-film mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[17]  N Karssemeijer,et al.  Comparison of digital and conventional mammography: a ROC study of 270 mammograms. , 1992, Medical informatics = Medecine et informatique.

[18]  C. Kimme-Smith New and future developments in screen-film mammography equipment and techniques. , 1992, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[19]  O Jarlman,et al.  Digital Luminescence Mammography , 1991, Acta radiologica.

[20]  L Desponds,et al.  Image quality index (IQI) for screen-film mammography. , 1991, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  C Kimme-Smith,et al.  Digital mammography. A comparison of two digitization methods. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[22]  P. F. Winter,et al.  Breast calcifications: analysis of imaging properties. , 1988, Radiology.

[23]  G Hermann,et al.  Occult malignant breast lesions in 114 patients: relationship to age and the presence of microcalcifications. , 1988, Radiology.

[24]  K Doi,et al.  Digital Mammography: ROC Studies of the Effects of Pixel Size and Unsharp-Mask Filtering on the Detection of Subtle Microcalcifications , 1987 .

[25]  J. Hachiya,et al.  Breast and thyroid , 1987 .

[26]  C. Metz ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[27]  E. Sickles Breast calcifications: mammographic evaluation. , 1986, Radiology.

[28]  J. Drace,et al.  Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display. , 1986, Radiology.

[29]  E A Sickles,et al.  Mammographic detectability of breast microcalcifications. , 1982, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[31]  John A. Swets,et al.  Evaluation of diagnostic systems : methods from signal detection theory , 1982 .

[32]  H L Kundel,et al.  Spatial frequency spectra of radiographic images. , 1971, Radiology.