Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Samei, Ehsan en_US
dc.contributor.author Webb, LJ
dc.contributor.author Samei, E
dc.contributor.author Lo, JY
dc.contributor.author Baker, JA
dc.contributor.author Ghate, SV
dc.contributor.author Kim, C
dc.contributor.author Soo, MS
dc.contributor.author Walsh, R
dc.coverage.spatial United States
dc.date.accessioned 2010-05-13T17:54:04Z
dc.date.issued 2011-04
dc.identifier http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21626930
dc.identifier.citation Med Phys, 2011, 38 (4), pp. 1972 - 1980
dc.identifier.issn 0094-2405
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2508
dc.description Thesis en_US
dc.description.abstract PURPOSE: Mammography is known to be one of the most difficult radiographic exams to interpret. Mammography has important limitations, including the superposition of normal tissue that can obscure a mass, chance alignment of normal tissue to mimic a true lesion and the inability to derive volumetric information. It has been shown that stereomammography can overcome these deficiencies by showing that layers of normal tissue lay at different depths. If standard stereomammography (i.e., a single stereoscopic pair consisting of two projection images) can significantly improve lesion detection, how will multiview stereoscopy (MVS), where many projection images are used, compare to mammography? The aim of this study was to assess the relative performance of MVS compared to mammography for breast mass detection. METHODS: The MVS image sets consisted of the 25 raw projection images acquired over an arc of approximately 45 degrees using a Siemens prototype breast tomosynthesis system. The mammograms were acquired using a commercial Siemens FFDM system. The raw data were taken from both of these systems for 27 cases and realistic simulated mass lesions were added to duplicates of the 27 images at the same local contrast. The images with lesions (27 mammography and 27 MVS) and the images without lesions (27 mammography and 27 MVS) were then postprocessed to provide comparable and representative image appearance across the two modalities. All 108 image sets were shown to five full-time breast imaging radiologists in random order on a state-of-the-art stereoscopic display. The observers were asked to give a confidence rating for each image (0 for lesion definitely not present, 100 for lesion definitely present). The ratings were then compiled and processed using ROC and variance analysis. RESULTS: The mean AUC for the five observers was 0.614 +/- 0.055 for mammography and 0.778 +/- 0.052 for multiview stereoscopy. The difference of 0.164 +/- 0.065 was statistically significant with a p-value of 0.0148. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the AUCs and the p-value suggest that multiview stereoscopy has a statistically significant advantage over mammography in the detection of simulated breast masses. This highlights the dominance of anatomical noise compared to quantum noise for breast mass detection. It also shows that significant lesion detection can be achieved with MVS without any of the artifacts associated with tomosynthesis.
dc.format.extent 1972 - 1980
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language eng
dc.language.iso en_US
dc.relation.ispartof Med Phys
dc.relation.isversionof 10.1118/1.3562901
dc.subject Algorithms
dc.subject Breast Neoplasms
dc.subject Computer Graphics
dc.subject Humans
dc.subject Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
dc.subject Mammography
dc.subject ROC Curve
dc.title Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection.
dc.type Journal Article
dc.department Medical Physics en_US
duke.embargo.months 6 en_US
dc.date.accessible 2010-05-18T05:00:37Z
pubs.author-url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21626930
pubs.issue 4
pubs.organisational-group /Duke
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Pratt School of Engineering
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Pratt School of Engineering/Biomedical Engineering
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Clinical Science Departments
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Clinical Science Departments/Radiology
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Clinical Science Departments/Radiology/Radiology, Breast Imaging
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Institutes and Centers
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Institutes and Centers/Duke Cancer Institute
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Trinity College of Arts & Sciences
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Trinity College of Arts & Sciences/Physics
pubs.publication-status Published
pubs.volume 38

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record