| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Experimental Studies |
1 From the Departments of Radiology (S.S., A.K., S.V., C.J.D.) and Information Services (S.P.B.), University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Mass; and Department of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass (H.V.). Received October 24, 2001; revision requested January 4, 2002; revision received March 20; accepted May 13. Supported by National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute grant RO1-CA88792. Address correspondence to A.K., Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Rm A133A, Atlanta, GA 30322 (e-mail: akarell@emory.edu).
PURPOSE: To compare the contrast-detail (CD) characteristics of screen-film (SF) and postprocessed digital images by using a phantom-based method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images of a CD phantom with polymerized methyl methacrylate were acquired with SF and full-field digital mammography systems at matched exposure conditions. A four-alternative forced-choice experiment was conducted with seven observers participating in the study. Each observer was required to identify randomly located disks in phantom images from which detection curves were computed. The CD diagrams for the SF and digital systems were estimated from the detection curves and compared at 50% and 62.5% threshold levels. Furthermore, a theoretic model was used to estimate the CD performance of the SF and digital systems.
RESULTS: Analysis of covariance for mixed models was used with the natural logarithm of disk thickness as the dependent variable, the natural logarithm of disk diameter as the covariate, and the observer as a random factor. The results of statistical analysis indicated significant differences between the CD characteristics of SF and digital mammographic images at both 50% (P < .001) and 62.5% (P < .001) detection thresholds.
CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that digital CD curves, on average, exhibit threshold contrast characteristics that are lower (better) than those of SF mammography.
© RSNA, 2002
Index terms: Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.32, 00.111, 00.121 • Breast radiography, comparative studies, 00.111, 00.121 • Breast radiography, technology, 00.111, 00.121 • Phantoms • Radiography, digital, 00.121
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, I. Sechopoulos, and C. J. D'Orsi Detection of Simulated Microcalcifications in a Phantom with Digital Mammography: Effect of Pixel Size Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 130 - 137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Penedo, M. Souto, P. G. Tahoces, J. M. Carreira, J. Villalon, G. Porto, C. Seoane, J. J. Vidal, K. S. Berbaum, D. P. Chakraborty, et al. Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic Evaluation of Lossy JPEG2000 and Object-based Set Partitioning in Hierarchical Trees Compression of Digitized Mammograms Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 450 - 457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane, C. Balleyguier, F. Diekmann, S. Diekmann, J.-C. Piguet, K. Young, and L. T. Niklason Breast Lesion Detection and Classification: Comparison of Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-copy Reading--Observer Performance Study Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 37 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S. M. Waldrop, and C. J. D'Orsi Detection of Simulated Lesions on Data-compressed Digital Mammograms Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 31 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane and A. Skjennald 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, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 197 - 204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
