Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.

Objective: To compare the performance of different types of detectors in breast cancer detection.Methods: A mammography image set containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions, biopsy-proven benign lesions, simulated malignant calcification clusters and normals was acquired using amorphous-s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:European Radiology Vol. 26; no. 3; pp. 874 - 884
Autores principales: Mackenzie, Alistair, Warren, Lucy, Wallis, Matthew, Cooke, Julie, Given-Wilson, Rosalind, Dance, David, Chakraborty, Dev, Halling-Brown, Mark, Looney, Padraig, Young, Kenneth, Warren, Lucy M, Wallis, Matthew G, Given-Wilson, Rosalind M, Dance, David R, Chakraborty, Dev P, Halling-Brown, Mark D, Looney, Padraig T, Young, Kenneth C
Formato: research Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Mar2016
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=112861103&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 112861103
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        09387994
        NPH
      jtl: European Radiology
      issn: 09387994
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2016
      vid: 26
      iid: 3
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        112861103
        112861103
        NLM26105023
        112861103
        10.1007/s00330-015-3885-y
        NLM26105023
        PMC4691226 [Available on 03/01/17]
        112861103
      ppf: 874
      ppct: 10
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.
      aug:
        au:
          Mackenzie, Alistair
          Warren, Lucy
          Wallis, Matthew
          Cooke, Julie
          Given-Wilson, Rosalind
          Dance, David
          Chakraborty, Dev
          Halling-Brown, Mark
          Looney, Padraig
          Young, Kenneth
          Warren, Lucy M
          Wallis, Matthew G
          Given-Wilson, Rosalind M
          Dance, David R
          Chakraborty, Dev P
          Halling-Brown, Mark D
          Looney, Padraig T
          Young, Kenneth C
        affil: Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge UK
      sug:
        subj:
          Breast Neoplasms Radiography
          Calcinosis Radiography
          Mammography Equipment and Supplies
          Aged
          ROC Curve
          Early Detection of Cancer Equipment and Supplies
          Early Detection of Cancer Methods
          Middle Age
          Health Screening Equipment and Supplies
          Needles
          Female
          Observer Bias
          Human
          Health Screening Methods
          Mammography Methods
          Radiographic Image Enhancement Methods
          Validation Studies
          Comparative Studies
          Evaluation Research
          Multicenter Studies
          Caregiver Strain Index
          Funding Source
          Aged: 65+ years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Female
      ab: Objective: To compare the performance of different types of detectors in breast cancer detection.Methods: A mammography image set containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions, biopsy-proven benign lesions, simulated malignant calcification clusters and normals was acquired using amorphous-selenium (a-Se) detectors. The images were adapted to simulate four types of detectors at the same radiation dose: digital radiography (DR) detectors with a-Se and caesium iodide (CsI) convertors, and computed radiography (CR) detectors with a powder phosphor (PIP) and a needle phosphor (NIP). Seven observers marked suspicious and benign lesions. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). The cancer detection fraction (CDF) was estimated for a representative image set from screening.Results: No significant differences in the FoMs between the DR detectors were measured. For calcification clusters and non-calcification lesions, both CR detectors' FoMs were significantly lower than for DR detectors. The calcification cluster's FoM for CR NIP was significantly better than for CR PIP. The estimated CDFs with CR PIP and CR NIP detectors were up to 15% and 22% lower, respectively, than for DR detectors.Conclusion: Cancer detection is affected by detector type, and the use of CR in mammography should be reconsidered.Key Points: The type of mammography detector can affect the cancer detection rates. CR detectors performed worse than DR detectors in mammography. Needle phosphor CR performed better than powder phosphor CR. Calcification clusters detection is more sensitive to detector type than other cancers.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N