Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제15권3호
  • /
  • Pages.305-312
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A New Full-Field Digital Mammography System with and without the Use of an Advanced Post-Processing Algorithm: Comparison of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance

  • Ahn, Hye Shin (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Sun Mi (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Jang, Mijung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Yun, Bo La (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Bohyoung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Ko, Eun Sook (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Han, Boo-Kyung (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Chang, Jung Min (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yi, Ann (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Nariya (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Woo Kyung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Hye Young (Department of Radiology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2014.01.06
  • 심사 : 2014.02.21
  • 발행 : 2014.06.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To compare new full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with and without use of an advanced post-processing algorithm to improve image quality, lesion detection, diagnostic performance, and priority rank. Materials and Methods: During a 22-month period, we prospectively enrolled 100 cases of specimen FFDM mammography ($Brestige^{(R)}$), which was performed alone or in combination with a post-processing algorithm developed by the manufacturer: group A (SMA), specimen mammography without application of "Mammogram enhancement ver. 2.0"; group B (SMB), specimen mammography with application of "Mammogram enhancement ver. 2.0". Two sets of specimen mammographies were randomly reviewed by five experienced radiologists. Image quality, lesion detection, diagnostic performance, and priority rank with regard to image preference were evaluated. Results: Three aspects of image quality (overall quality, contrast, and noise) of the SMB were significantly superior to those of SMA (p < 0.05). SMB was significantly superior to SMA for visualizing calcifications (p < 0.05). Diagnostic performance, as evaluated by cancer score, was similar between SMA and SMB. SMB was preferred to SMA by four of the five reviewers. Conclusion: The post-processing algorithm may improve image quality with better image preference in FFDM than without use of the software.

키워드

과제정보

연구 과제 주관 기관 : Ministry of Health & Welfare

참고문헌

  1. Meisner AL, Fekrazad MH, Royce ME. Breast disease: benign and malignant. Med Clin North Am 2008;92:1115-1141 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2008.04.003
  2. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 Part 1):347-360 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-5_Part_1-200209030-00012
  3. ACR. Cancer Facts & Figures 2012. American Cancer Society. Web site. http://www.cancer.org/. Published 2012, Accessed May 2, 2013
  4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911
  5. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246:376-383 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461070200
  6. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Mawdsley GE, Bright S, et al. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys 2006;33:719-736 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2163407
  7. Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Cardenosa G, Powell KA. Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:45-51 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.1.1750045
  8. Goldstraw EJ, Castellano I, Ashley S, Allen S. The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting. Br J Radiol 2010;83:122-128 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/96554696
  9. Chen B, Wang W, Huang J, Zhao M, Cui G, Xu J, et al. Comparison of tissue equalization, and premium view postprocessing methods in full field digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 2010;76:73-80 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.010
  10. del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, Moy B, Moore RH, Goss PE, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1147-1150 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0619
  11. Jackson VP, Hendrick RE, Feig SA, Kopans DB. Imaging of the radiographically dense breast. Radiology 1993;188:297-301 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.188.2.8327668
  12. Ko ES, Han BK, Kim SM, Ko EY, Jang M, Lyou CY, et al. Comparison of new and established full-field digital mammography systems in diagnostic performance. Korean J Radiol 2013;14:164-170 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.164
  13. ACR. Mammography Quality Control Manual. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999
  14. Laine AF, Schuler S, Fan J, Huda W. Mammographic feature enhancement by multiscale analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1994;13:725-740 https://doi.org/10.1109/42.363095
  15. Strickland RN, Hahn HI. Wavelet transforms for detecting microcalcifications in mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1996;15:218-229 https://doi.org/10.1109/42.491423
  16. Kallergi M, Clarke LP, Qian W, Gavrielides M, Venugopal P, Berman CG, et al. Interpretation of calcifications in screen/film, digitized, and wavelet-enhanced monitor-displayed mammograms: a receiver operating characteristic study. Acad Radiol 1996;3:285-293 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80240-6
  17. Li Y, Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M. A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography. Eur J Radiol 2010;74:e122-e131 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.069
  18. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, Zong S, Hemminger BM, Muller KE, et al. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology 2000;216:820-830 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.3.r00se48820
  19. Schueller G, Riedl CC, Mallek R, Eibenberger K, Langenberger H, Kaindl E, et al. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. Eur J Radiol 2008;67:487-496 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.08.016
  20. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, et al. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study. Radiology 2005;237:37-44 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2371041605
  21. Good WF, Sumkin JH, Dash N, Johns CM, Zuley ML, Rockette HE, et al. Observer sensitivity to small differences: a multipoint rank-order experiment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:275-278 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.2.10430118

피인용 문헌

  1. Significance and Application of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for the BI-RADS Classification of Breast Cancer vol.16, pp.9, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.9.4109
  2. Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea vol.17, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.4.489
  3. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  4. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888
  5. Digital breast tomosynthesis improves diagnostic accuracy of breast microcalcifications vol.31, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/ima.22481