Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

A contrast-detail comparison of computed mammotomography and digital mammography
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $17.00 $21.00

Paper Abstract

We use a contrast-detail observer study to compare performance of a novel 3D computed mammotomography (CmT) system with a commercially developed full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system. A contrast-detail phantom comprised of uniform acrylic spheres of various diameters was developed and placed in a variety of mediums including uniform water (simulating low contrast lesions within a uniform background), water and acrylic yarn (simulating low contrast lesions with over/under-lying structure), oil only (simulating higher contrast lesions in a uniform background), and oil and acrylic yarn (simulating higher contrast lesions with over/under-lying structure). For CmT, the phantom was placed in a 14.6 cm diameter uncompressed breast phantom and projections acquired using a simple circular orbit, W-target tube, 60 kVp tube potential, 0.05 cm Ce filtration, 4 mAs per projection, and a CsI(Tl) digital x-ray detector. Reconstructions used an iterative OSTR algorithm. For FFDM, the phantom was placed in a 5.3-cm-thick compressed breast phantom. Single CC-view mammograms were acquired using a clinical W-target tube with 50 um Rh filtration, 28 kVp, photo-timed mAs per our clinical mammography operation, and a Selenium-based flat-panel detector (Mammomat Novation, Siemens). Six observers evaluated the images in terms of the number of detectable spheres. FFDM performed significantly better for the low contrast lesions in uniform water background (p<0.05). However, CmT performed significantly better for all other cases (p<0.05). Results indicate that CmT shows significant advantage in soft tissue detection over FFDM in otherwise low contrast dense breasts.

Paper Details

Date Published: 28 March 2007
PDF: 10 pages
Proc. SPIE 6510, Medical Imaging 2007: Physics of Medical Imaging, 65101D (28 March 2007); doi: 10.1117/12.713032
Show Author Affiliations
Randolph L. McKinley III, Duke Univ. Medical Ctr. (United States)
Duke Univ. (United States)
Martin P. Tornai, Duke Univ. Medical Ctr. (United States)
Duke Univ. (United States)
Carey E. Floyd, Duke Univ. Medical Ctr. (United States)
Duke Univ. (United States)
Ehsan Samei, Duke Univ. Medical Ctr. (United States)
Duke Univ. (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 6510:
Medical Imaging 2007: Physics of Medical Imaging
Jiang Hsieh; Michael J. Flynn, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top