Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Phantom-based comparison of conventional versus phase-contrast mammography for LCD soft-copy diagnosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Liquid crystal display (LCD) of mammograms provides soft-copy results that differ in conventional and phase contrast mammography (PCM). PCM potentially offers the highest quality of sharpness and graininess, an edge emphasis effect on the object, and the highest image resolution. However, when the image is displayed on an LCD, the resolution depends on the pixel pitch and the PCM image data must be diminished. We investigated the observed effect on spatial resolution and contrast when conventional or phase contrast mammograms are viewed on an LCD.

Methods

Using the tissue-equivalent phantom (Model 1011A), a conventional mammogram and a magnification radiography image were obtained with a PCM system. This phantom contains simulated fibers, microcalcifications, and masses. The PCM image was reduced 1/1.75 to render it consistent with life size mammography using the nearest neighbor, bilinear, and bicubic interpolation methods. The images were displayed on a five million (5M)-pixel LCD with 100 % magnification. Ten mammography technicians observed the reduction images displayed on LCDs and reported their results.

Results

In the detectability of the microcalcifications, there was no significant difference between conventional mammograms and reduced PCM images. Regarding fibers and masses, detectability using reduced images was higher than those of conventional images. The detectability using images reduced by the nearest-neighbor method was lower than those of images reduced by two other interpolation methods. Bilinear interpolation was affected by the smoothing effect, while CNR was increased. In addition, since the noise of PCM image was reduced by an air gap effect, high detectability of key image features was found.

Conclusions

Soft-copy display of phase-contrast mammograms is feasible with LCDs, while detectability of fibers and masses was best with bilinear interpolation and use of an air gap.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Japan Industries Association of Radiological Systems (2005) Quality assurance guideline for medical imaging display systems. JESRA X-0093-2005

  2. Tohyama K, Katafuchi T, Matsuo S (2006) Clinical implications of phase-contrast imaging in mammography. Med Imaging Inf Sci 23:79–84

    Google Scholar 

  3. Keyrilainen J, Bravin A, Fernandez M et al (2010) Phase-contrast X-ray imaging of breast. Acta Radiologica 51(8):866–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arfelli F, Assane M, Bonvicini V et al (1998) Low-dose phase contrast X-ray medical imaging. Phys Med Biol 43:2845–2852

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Castelli E, Tonutti M, Arfelli F et al (2011) Mammography with synchrotron radiation: first clinical experience with phase-detection technique. Radiology 259(3):684–694

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gido T, Nagatsuka S, Amitani K et al (2005) Advanced digital mammography system based on phase contrast technology. In: Proceedings of SPIE 5745, Medical Imaging 2005: Physics of Medical Imaging, pp 511–518

  7. Kotre CJ, Birch IP (1999) Phase contrast enhancement of X-ray mammography: a design study. Phys Med Biol 44:2853–2866

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang D, Donovan M, Fajardo L et al (2008) Preliminary feasibility study of an in-line phase contrast X-ray imaging prototype. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(9):2249–2257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arfelli F, Bonvicini V, Bravin A et al (2000) Mammography with synchrotron radiation: phase-detection techniques. Radiology 215:286–293

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tanaka T, Honda C, Matsuo S et al (2005) The first trial of phase contrast imaging for digital full-field mammography using a practical molybdenum X-ray tube. Invest Radiol 40:385–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Matsuo S, Fujita H, Morishita J et al (2008) Preliminary evaluation of a phase contrast imaging with digital mammography. In: Krupinski EA (ed) Digital Mammography. Springer lectures Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) vol 5116, pp 130–136

  12. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (2004) DICOM PS3.14 digital imaging and communications in medical (DICOM) part 14. Grayscale Standard Display Function

  13. Bliznakova K, Speller R, Horrocks J et al (2010) Experimental validation of a radiographic simulation code using breast phantom for X-ray imaging. Comput Biol Med 40(2):208–214

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hessler C, Depeursinge C, Greceescu M et al (1985) Objective assessment of mammography systems, Part I. method. Radiology 156:215–219

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McCrohon L, Thompson E, Butler F (1983) Mammographic phantom evaluation project. HHS Publ 83:8213

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fatouros P, Skubic E, Goodman H (1985) The development and use of realistically shaped, tissue-equivalent phantoms for assessing the mammographic process. Radiology 157:32

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lehmann T, Gonner C, Spitzer K (1999) Interpolation methods in medical image processing. IEEE Trans Med Imag 18:1049–1075

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Parker AJ, Kenyon R, Troxel D (1983) Comparison of interpolating methods for image resampling. IEEE Trans Med Imag 2:31–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Caruso C, Quarta F (1998) Interpolation methods comparison. Comput Math Appl 35(12):109–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hendrick RE, Bassett L, Botsco MA et al (1999) Mammography quality control manual. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lyra M, Kordolaimi S, Salvara A (2010) Presentation of digital radiographic systems and the quality control procedures that currently followed by various organizations worldwide. Recent Patents Med Imaging 2:5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Alsager A, Young K, Oduko J et al (2008) Impact of heel effect and ROI size on the determination of contrast-to-noise ratio for digital mammography systems. Proceedings of SPIE vol 6913, p 69134I

  23. Matsuo S, Katafuchi T, Tohyama K et al (2005) Evaluation of edge effect due to phase contrast imaging for mammography. Med. Phys. 32(8):2690–2697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ohara H, Honda C, Ishisaka A, Shimada F (2004) The improvement of X-ray image sharpness in X-ray phase imaging. Konica Minolta Rechnol Rep 1:131–134

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank students at the Nagoya University for their many fruitful discussions. The authors thank also the reviewers for their insightful comments. Conflict of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, 1-1-20 Daiko-Minami, Higashi-Ku, Nagoya, 4618673, Japan

    Akiko Ihori & Yoshie Kodera

  2. Department of Radiological Technology, Nagoya University Hospital, 65 Tsurumai-Cho, Showa-Ku, Nagoya, 4668560, Japan

    Naotoshi Fujita

  3. School of Health Sciences, Gifu University of Medical Science, 795-1 Nagamine, Ichihiraga, Seki, 5013892, Japan

    Akihiro Sugiura & Naruomi Yasuda

Authors
  1. Akiko Ihori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naotoshi Fujita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Akihiro Sugiura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naruomi Yasuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yoshie Kodera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akiko Ihori.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ihori, A., Fujita, N., Sugiura, A. et al. Phantom-based comparison of conventional versus phase-contrast mammography for LCD soft-copy diagnosis. Int J CARS 8, 621–633 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-012-0805-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-012-0805-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation