Table Of ContentDigital Mammography
IWDM2002
6thInternationalWorkshop onDigital Mammography
Springer
Berlin
Heidelberg
NewYork
HongKong
London
Milan
Paris
Tokyo
Heinz-Otto Peitgen
Editor
Digital Mammography
IWDM 2002
6th International Workshop
on Digital Mammography
Proceedings ofthe Workshop
June 22-25,2002, Bremen, Germany
, Springer
Heinz-OttoPeitgen,Ph.D.
ProfessorofMathematicsandBiomedicalSciences
MeVis- CenterforMedicalDiagnosticSystemsandVisualization
attheUniversityofBremen
Universitatsallee29
28359Bremen,Germany
With282figuresand78tables
ISBN-l3:978-3-642-63936-4 e-ISBN-13:978-3-<i42-59327-7
DOl:10.1007/978-3-<)42-59327-7
Cataloging-in-PublicationDataappliedfor
BibliographicinformationpublishedbyDieDeutscheBibliothek
DieDeutscheBibliothekliststhispublicationintheDeutscheNationalbibliografie;detailedbibliographicdataisavail
ableintheInternetat<http://dnb.ddb.de>
Thiswork issubjecttocopyright.All rightsarereserved.whetherthewholeorpartofthe materialisconcerned.
specifically the rights of translation. reprinting. reuse of illustrations. recitation. broadcasting. reproduction on
microfilmorinanyotherway.andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermitted
onlyundertheprovisionsoftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9.1965,initscurrentversion.andpermissionfor
usemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer-Verlag.ViolationsareliableforprosecutionundertheGermanCopyright
Law.
Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelbergNewYork
amemberofBertelsmannSpringerScience+BusinessMediaGmbH
http://www.springer.de
©Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2003
Softcoverreprintofthehardcover1stedition2003
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames.trademarks.etc.inthispublicationdoesnotimply.eveninthe
absenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevant protectivelawsandregulations and
thereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Cover-Design:design&productionGmbH,Heidelberg
Typsetting:Camera-readybyeditor
Printedonacidfreepaper 2113150HS - 5 4 3 2 1 0
Preface
This book comprises the scientific proceedings of the International Workshop
on Digital Mammography (IWDM), held in Bremen, Germany, from June 22
to June 25, 2002. Since its inception in 1992, IWDM has grown into the In
ternational Forum on Digital Mammography. The uniqueness of IWDM is its
attractiveness to researchers, medical practitioners, and industrial developers.
F6rmer workshops were held in San Jose, USA (1992), York, UK (1994),
Chicago, USA (1996), Nijmegen, NL (1998), and Toronto, Canada (2000). Each
of these scientific events has been combined with very successful and focused
industrial and research exhibits, which demonstrated the milestones of digital
mammography hard- and software.
Now, that digital mammography is entering routine clinical use, we witness
its strong impact on screening and diagnostic mammography, computer aided
detection, minimally invasive procedures, and the development ofsystemic and
integrated disease- oriented breast care. In view ofthis, the 2002 workshop pro
vided a window to give us a glance at the future, and the work which was
presented in talks, posters and exhibits has demonstrated that IWDM2002 will
take a special place in the very successful sequence ofIWDM events.
Finally, asconference chair, I would liketo thank all who have helped to pre
pare and run IWDM2002: the Scientific Advisory Board for itsexcellent work in
guaranteeingscientificsignificance,theOrganizationalBoardfor itshardworkto
accomplishanappropriateframework for theevent, and the industrialexhibitors
and sponsors for their generous support.
Bremen, January 2003 Heinz-Otto Peitgen
Conference Chair
Professor of Mathematics and
Biomedical Sciences
VI
Scientific Committee
Susan Astley University ofManchester, UK
Ulrich Bick Charit Berlin, Germany/University ofChicago, USA
Michael Brady Oxford University, UK
Hiroshi Fujita Gifu University, Japan
Maryellen Giger University ofChicago, USA
Nico Karssemeijer University Hospital Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Heinz-Otto PeitgenUniversity ofBremen, Germany
Etta D. Pisano University ofNorth Carolina, USA
Martin Yaffe University ofToronto, Canada
IWDM 2002 was supported by
(MeViS
SIEMENS
BreastCare
medical
I'
GeneralElectric
ARC-0
Fllmle..Perfectionfor
DI I JMammography
Table of Contents
Imaging Systems and Detectors ........................... 1
Digital Mammographic Application ofa Single Photon Counting Pixel
Detector. ..... .. .... .... ...... .. ........ ......... .. .............. 3
Amendolia SR, Bisogni MG, Delogu P, Fantacci ME, Novelli M,
Quattrocchi M, Rosso V, Stefanini A, Zucca S
Breast Cancer Screening Using a Dedicated Breast CT Scanner: A
Feasibility Study. ................................................. 6
Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Seibert JA, Nelson TR
Physical Evaluation of a Prototype for the Sectra Microdose
Mammography System. .. ...... .. ...... ... ...... .. ................ 12
Lundqvist M, Bergstrom D, Cederstrom B, Chmill V, Chuntonov A,
Danielsson M, Aslund M
Dose Measurements on a Scanning Multi-slit Digital Mammography
System.......................................................... 17
Hansson B, Cederstrom B, Danielsson M, Aslund M
Digital Mammography vs. to Screen-Film Mammography: a Phantom
Study........................................................... 20
Heid P, Pagliuchi C, Seradour B, Motte N, Langlois L, Kurkdjian S,
Piana L
Mammography Taxonomy for Improvement ofLesion Detection Rates ... 27
Howard D, Roberts SC, Tabar L
A High Resolution (25 p.m) Hybrid Selenium/CCD Slot Scan Detector
for Digital Mammography. ......................................... 33
Hunter DM, De Crescenzo G, Mainprize JG, Mawdsley GE, Smith C,
Kasap SO, Rowlands JAR, Tumer T, Yin S, Yaffe MJ
Co-registered Breast Imaging with 3D X-Rays and 3D Ultrasound. ..... 38
Kapur A, Eberhard JW, Abdalmajeid AM, Thomenius K
Imaging Characteristics of a Direct Conversion Full-Field Digital
Mammography Detector using Selenium. ............................ 43
Lee DL, Yorker lG, ling Z, leromin LS
Simultaneous Acquisition ofDiffraction, Scattering and Phase-Contrast
Images by Means of a Multi-Layer Edge-On Microstrip Detector 48
Olivo A, Arfelli P, Bergamaschi A, Dreossi D, Longo R, Menk RH,
Montanari F, Pani S, Poropat P, Rigon L, Vallazza E, Castelli E
VIII
Full Field Digital Mammography with a CCD Based Slot-Scanned
Detector. Physical Characteristics Measurements. ..................... 51
Tahoces PC, Nishikawa RM
Evaluation ofLight Collection in Digital Indirect Detection X-Ray
Imagers: Monte Carlo Simulations with a More Realistic Phosphor
Screen Model. .................................................... 54
Petrick N, Woo TH, Ghan HP, Sahiner B, Hadjiiski LM
The Effect ofScatter Radiation and its Removal on the DQE ofDigital
Mammography Systems. ........................................... 59
Nishikawa RM
Finding CLS Using a Multiresolution Oriented Local Energy Feature
Detection ........................................................ 64
Schenk VUB, Brady JM
Characterization of an FFDM Unit Based on a-Se Direct Conversion
Detector ......................................................... 69
Albanese A, Bevilacqua A, Gampanini R, Iampieri E, Lanconelli N,
Rossi M, Romani D, Salomoni V, Vignoli P
Comparison of Noise Characteristics Between CR System and Full
Field Digital Mammography System. ................................ 72
Kobayashi H, Tanigoshi M, Suzuki T, Uchiyama N
Physical Factors Affecting the Detection of Calcifications in Digital
Mammography 75
Shaw GG, Liu X, Kappadath SJ, Lai GJ, Rong X, Whitman G
Image Quality. .. .. ... ... .... ........ .... .... .. ...... .... ..... 79
A First Experience ofQuality Control in Full Field Digital Mammography 81
Baldelli P, di Maggio G, Gambaccini M, Gennaro G, Taibi A
Acceptance Testing of Digital Mammography Units for the
ACRINjDMIST Study 85
Bloomquist AK, Bright S, Shen SZ, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ
Evaluation and Modelling ofDetection, Location and Discrimination of
Lesions in Mammograms. .......................................... 90
Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF
Effect of Detector Noise on Phantom Image Quality in a Number of
FFDM Systems. .................................................. 95
Ghakrabarti K, Kaczmarek RV, Thomas JA, Mahesh M
IX
Features Analysis Comparison ofCharge-Coupled Device (CCD) and
Amorphous Selenium* (aSe) Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)
Systems 100
Gray lE, ling Z, Fajardo LL, Kopans DB, Levit B, Moore RH
Comparison of Screen-Film, Imaging Plate and Direct Digital
Mammography With CD Phantoms. ................................ 105
Hemdal B, Bay TH, Bengtsson G, Gangeskar L, Martinsen AC,
Pedersen K, Thilander Klang A, Mattsson S
OptimizingFull-FieldDigital MammographyTechniques: TheInfluence
ofTarget-Filter and Peak Voltage Settings on Lesion Detection and
Average Glandular Dose. .......................................... 108
Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe E
A New CR Based System for High Resolution Mammography:
Experimental Analysis ofLow Contrast Detectability .................. 111
Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Zach-Enk A, Grabbe E
Digital Luminescence Mammography (CR) Without Magnification In
Clinical Routine (n=1.363) ......................................... 114
Schulz-Wendtland RWS, Aichinger U, Kuchar I, Tartsch M, Bautz W
Digital Luminescence Mammography: A Phantom Study Before
Clinical Use. ..................................................... 118
Schulz-Wendtland RWS, Aichinger U, BohnerC, Dobritz M, Tartsch
M, Bautz W
Interpreting System MTF and NPS Measured on Clinical Digital
Mammography Systems. ........................................... 123
Shen SZ, Mawdsley GE, Bloomquist AK, Mainprize lG, Yaffe Ml
Automated Methodfor MeasuringContrast-to-Noise-Ratio (CNR) and
Signal-to-Noise-Ratio (SNR) on a Full Field Digital Mammography
System (FFDMS) ................................................. 128
Thomas lA, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek RV, Romanyukna A
Interpretation of Contrast Detail Images in Digital Mammography:
Human Observer versus Computer Detection. ........................ 133
Bijkerk KR, Oostveen Ll, Van Engen RE, Swinkels MMl, Veldkamp
WlH
Automated scoring for CD-MAM phantom on digital mammography. ... 136
Ci%lo C, Muller S, Peter G, Noel A, Stines 1
Comparison ofExperimental and Theoretical Assessments of Detail
Visibility in Digital Mammography. ................................. 139
Dance DR, Hunt RA, Sajewicz A, Huda W, Ogden KM, Sandborg M,
Aim Carlsson G
x
Comparison of Objective and Subjective Methods to Assess Imaging
Performance in Digital Mammography. .............................. 142
Huda W, Ogden KM, Sajewicz A, Dance DR, Scalzetti EM
Dose Reduction in Full-Field Digital Mammography - An
Anthropomorphic Breast Phantom Study. ........................... 145
Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E
Evaluation of the Exposure Dose Reduction in Full-Field Digital
Mammography System '" ..... .. ............. 149
Tanigoshi M, Kobayashi H, Uchiyama N, Suzuki T, Kumazaki T
Optimization ofDigital Subtraction Mammography using Monte Carlo
Simulation ofthe Imaging Chain , 152
Ullman G, Sandborg M, Dance DR, Skarpathiotakis M, Yaffe MJ, Alm
Carlsson G
Image Quality ofa Dual Side Reading Fuji Computed Mammography
System Compared to the GE FFDM System and a Film/Screen
Mammography System " ,.. ...... .. .... ..... 155
Van Engen RE, Veldkamp WJH, Oostveen LJ, Thijssen MAO,
Karssemeijer N
Image Processing and Display ............................. 159
An Automatic Scheme to Breast Region Segmentation. ................ 161
Adel M, Rasigni M, Rasigni G, Seradour B, Heid P
A Universal Segmentation Platform for Computer-Aided Detection ..... 164
Allen B, Oxley M, Collins M
Improved Aids For Image Comparison. .............................. 169
Ancelin B, Highnam RP, Brady JM
Film-Screen Artefact Detection in Mammograms 174
Ancelin B, Yam M, Highnam RP, Brady JM
Learning the Optimal Contrast Enhancement ofMammographic Breast
Masses 179
Bovis KJ, Singh S
Automatic Evaluation ofMammographic Adequacy and Quality on the
Mediolateral Oblique View. ........................................ 182
Chandrasekhar R, Kwok SM, Attikiouzel Y
Peripheral Thickness Correction for Volumetric Breast Density Estimation 187
Rico D, Yang J, Augustine B, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ
An Adaptive Enhancement Filter For Mammographic Phantom Image. .. 192
Guis V, Adel M, Rasigni M, Rasigni G, Seradour B, Heid P
