Cargando…

A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements

BACKGROUND: Breast density is a significant breast cancer risk factor measured from mammograms. The most appropriate method for measuring breast density for risk applications is still under investigation. Calibration standardizes mammograms to account for acquisition technique differences prior to m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fowler, Erin EE, Lu, Beibei, Heine, John J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24207013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-12-114
_version_ 1782291332311547904
author Fowler, Erin EE
Lu, Beibei
Heine, John J
author_facet Fowler, Erin EE
Lu, Beibei
Heine, John J
author_sort Fowler, Erin EE
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Breast density is a significant breast cancer risk factor measured from mammograms. The most appropriate method for measuring breast density for risk applications is still under investigation. Calibration standardizes mammograms to account for acquisition technique differences prior to making breast density measurements. We evaluated whether a calibration methodology developed for an indirect x-ray conversion full field digital mammography (FFDM) technology applies to direct x-ray conversion FFDM systems. METHODS: Breast tissue equivalent (BTE) phantom images were used to establish calibration datasets for three similar direct x-ray conversion FFDM systems. The calibration dataset for each unit is a function of the target/filter combination, x-ray tube voltage, current × time (mAs), phantom height, and two detector fields of view (FOVs). Methods were investigated to reduce the amount of calibration data by restricting the height, mAs, and FOV sampling. Calibration accuracy was evaluated with mixture phantoms. We also compared both intra- and inter-system calibration characteristics and accuracy. RESULTS: Calibration methods developed previously apply to direct x-ray conversion systems with modification. Calibration accuracy was largely within the acceptable range of ± 4 standardized units from the ideal value over the entire acquisition parameter space for the direct conversion units. Acceptable calibration accuracy was maintained with a cubic-spline height interpolation, representing a modification to previous work. Calibration data is unit specific, can be acquired with the large FOV, and requires a minimum of one reference mAs sample. The mAs sampling, calibration accuracy, and the necessity for machine specific calibration data are common characteristics and in agreement with our previous work. CONCLUSION: The generality of our calibration approach was established under ideal conditions. Evaluation with patient data using breast cancer status as the endpoint is required to demonstrate that the approach produces a breast density measure associated with breast cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3829208
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38292082013-11-20 A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements Fowler, Erin EE Lu, Beibei Heine, John J Biomed Eng Online Research BACKGROUND: Breast density is a significant breast cancer risk factor measured from mammograms. The most appropriate method for measuring breast density for risk applications is still under investigation. Calibration standardizes mammograms to account for acquisition technique differences prior to making breast density measurements. We evaluated whether a calibration methodology developed for an indirect x-ray conversion full field digital mammography (FFDM) technology applies to direct x-ray conversion FFDM systems. METHODS: Breast tissue equivalent (BTE) phantom images were used to establish calibration datasets for three similar direct x-ray conversion FFDM systems. The calibration dataset for each unit is a function of the target/filter combination, x-ray tube voltage, current × time (mAs), phantom height, and two detector fields of view (FOVs). Methods were investigated to reduce the amount of calibration data by restricting the height, mAs, and FOV sampling. Calibration accuracy was evaluated with mixture phantoms. We also compared both intra- and inter-system calibration characteristics and accuracy. RESULTS: Calibration methods developed previously apply to direct x-ray conversion systems with modification. Calibration accuracy was largely within the acceptable range of ± 4 standardized units from the ideal value over the entire acquisition parameter space for the direct conversion units. Acceptable calibration accuracy was maintained with a cubic-spline height interpolation, representing a modification to previous work. Calibration data is unit specific, can be acquired with the large FOV, and requires a minimum of one reference mAs sample. The mAs sampling, calibration accuracy, and the necessity for machine specific calibration data are common characteristics and in agreement with our previous work. CONCLUSION: The generality of our calibration approach was established under ideal conditions. Evaluation with patient data using breast cancer status as the endpoint is required to demonstrate that the approach produces a breast density measure associated with breast cancer. BioMed Central 2013-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3829208/ /pubmed/24207013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-12-114 Text en Copyright © 2013 Fowler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Fowler, Erin EE
Lu, Beibei
Heine, John J
A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements
title A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements
title_full A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements
title_fullStr A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements
title_short A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements
title_sort comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24207013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-12-114
work_keys_str_mv AT fowlererinee acomparisonofcalibrationdatafromfullfielddigitalmammographyunitsforbreastdensitymeasurements
AT lubeibei acomparisonofcalibrationdatafromfullfielddigitalmammographyunitsforbreastdensitymeasurements
AT heinejohnj acomparisonofcalibrationdatafromfullfielddigitalmammographyunitsforbreastdensitymeasurements
AT fowlererinee comparisonofcalibrationdatafromfullfielddigitalmammographyunitsforbreastdensitymeasurements
AT lubeibei comparisonofcalibrationdatafromfullfielddigitalmammographyunitsforbreastdensitymeasurements
AT heinejohnj comparisonofcalibrationdatafromfullfielddigitalmammographyunitsforbreastdensitymeasurements