1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Single x-ray absorptiometry method for the quantitative mammographic measure of fibroglandular tissue volume
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.3253972
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/12/10.1118/1.3253972
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/12/10.1118/1.3253972

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

The phantom is imaged in the unused portion of each mammogram.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Image of the geometry used to find breast thickness and paddle tilt.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The phantom appearing in all four screening views, as would be seen from a reading workstation.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Phantom image with valid ROIs shown as the numbered dark areas. The stars represent 3D-reconstructed lead marker locations.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(a) A mammogram where the gray scale is calibrated to %FGV. (b) The modeled breast thickness from the same mammogram using the SXA method.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Three phantoms used to for quality control and validation of the SXA method. (Left) TILT phantom, (center) DSP7, (right) DSP3.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Calibration image showing measured fibroglandular reference line, derived fat references as dependent on the step height. Quadratic fits plotted as lines and breast region pixel frequencies plotted as contours.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Bland–Altman plot of difference between the DICOM thickness (Hd) and our phantom-reported thickness (Hph).

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

%FGV error estimation due to thickness variation for three true thickness of 6, 4, and 2 cm. The slope of the %FGV error varies as a function of true thickness.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

FGV error estimation due to thickness variation.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

%FGV error estimation due to angle variation.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

ROI pixel values of the TILT phantom with , 50/50, and 100% and a tilt angle of 6.8°.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Chest-to-nipple pixel profile values for a single image row of a breast with the appearance of totally fatty. This profile is compared to phantom materials with the same thickness profile but different densities. Note that the breast is more “fatty” than the CIRS fat reference material.

Image of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

Tilt paddle angle distributions for 14 000 subject CC-view mammograms of both right and left breasts.

Image of FIG. 15.
FIG. 15.

Long-term stability of the SXA technique on a Hologic Selenia full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Image of FIG. 16.
FIG. 16.

A comparison of mammographic density and percent fibroglandular tissue volume for 300 CC-view mammograms.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Precision and accuracy estimates for phantom thickness at different compression plate angles.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/12/10.1118/1.3253972
2009-11-06
2014-04-18
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Single x-ray absorptiometry method for the quantitative mammographic measure of fibroglandular tissue volume
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/12/10.1118/1.3253972
10.1118/1.3253972
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM