Search

Objectives: To demonstrate non-inferiority of iobitridol 350 for coronary CT angiography (CTA) compared to higher iodine content contrast media regarding rate of patients evaluable for the presence of coronary artery stenoses., Methods: In this multicentre trial, 452 patients were randomized to receive iobitridol 350, iopromide 370 or iomeprol 400 and underwent coronary CTA using CT systems with 64-detector rows or more. Two core lab readers assessed 18 coronary segments per patient regarding image quality (score 0 = non diagnostic to 4 = excellent quality), vascular attenuation, signal and contrast to noise ratio (SNR, CNR). Patients were considered evaluable if no segment had a score of 0., Results: Per-patient, the rate of fully evaluable CT scans was 92.1, 95.4 and 94.6 % for iobitridol, iopromide and iomeprol, respectively. Non-inferiority of iobitridol over the best comparator was demonstrated with a 95 % CI of the difference of [-8.8 to 2.1], with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10 %. Although average attenuation increased with higher iodine concentrations, average SNR and CNR did not differ between groups., Conclusions: With current CT technology, iobitridol 350 mg iodine/ml is not inferior to contrast media with higher iodine concentrations in terms of image quality for coronary stenosis assessment., Key Points: • Iodine concentration is an important parameter for image quality in coronary CTA. • Contrast enhancement must be balanced against the amount of iodine injected. • Iobitridol 350 is non-inferior compared to CM with higher iodine concentrations. • Higher attenuation with higher iodine concentrations, but no SNR or CNR differences.

The functionalities of the JPEG2000 standard have led to its incorporation into digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM), which makes this compression method available for medical systems. In this study, we evaluated the compression of mammographic images with JPEG2000 (16 : 1, 20 : 1, 40 : 1, 60.4 : 1, 80: 1, and 106 : 1) for applications with a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for clusters of microcalcifications. Jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis indicated that differences in the detection of clusters of microcalcifications were not statistically significant for uncompressed versus 16: 1 (T = -0.7780; p = 0.4370), 20 : 1 (T = 1.0361; p = 0.3007), and 40 : 1 (T = 1.6966; p = 0.0904); and statistically significant for uncompressed versus 60.4 : 1 (T = 5.8883; p < 0.008), 80 : 1 (T = 7.8414; p < 0.008), and 106 : 1 (T = 17.5034; p = < 0.008). Although there is a small difference in peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) between compression ratios, the true-positive (TP) and false-positive (FP) rates, and the free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC), figure of merit values considerably decreased from a 60 : 1 compression ratio. The performance of the CAD system is significantly reduced when using images compressed at ratios greater than 40 : 1 with JPEG2000 compared to uncompressed images. Mammographic images compressed up to 20 : 1 provide a percentage of correct detections by our CAD system similar to uncompressed images, regardless of the characteristics of the cluster. Further investigation is required to determine how JPEG2000 affects the detectability of clusters of microcalcifications as a function of their characteristics.

Mammographic screening programs are delivering reductions in breast cancer mortality. However, breast cancer screening will be cost effective and will provide a real profit only when both high sensitivity and specificity levels are reached. To date, due to human or technical factors, a significant number of breast cancers are still missed or misinterpreted on the mammograms. Computer methodologies, developed to assist radiologists, could represent further amelioration by increasing diagnostic accuracy in the screening programs. We have tested a computerized scheme to detect clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms, employing 360 mammograms that were randomly selected from the mammographic screening program, currently undergoing at the Galicia Community (Spain). After the digitization process, the breast border was initially determined. A wavelet-based algorithm was employed to detect the clusters of microcalcifications. The performance of the automated system over the test set was evaluated employing Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristic (FROC) methodology. The sensitivity achieved was 74% at a false positive detection rate of 1.83. The corresponding area under the Alternative FROC (AFROC) curve was A1=0.667 +/-0.09.

A computerized scheme to detect clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms has been developed. Detection of individual microcalcifications in regions of interest (ROIs) was also performed. The mammograms were previously classified into fatty and dense, according to their breast tissue. The most appropriate wavelet basis and reconstruction levels were selected. To select the wavelet basis, 40 profiles of microcalcifications were decomposed and reconstructed using different types of wavelet functions and different combinations of wavelet coefficients. The symlets with a basis of length 8 were chosen for fatty tissue. For dense tissue, the Daubechies' wavelets with a four-element basis were employed. Two methods to detect individual microcalcifications were evaluated: (a) two-dimensional wavelet transform, and (b) one-dimensional wavelet transform. The second technique yielded the best results, and was used to detect clustered microcalcifications in the complete mammogram. When detecting individual microcalcifications by using two-dimensional wavelet transform we have obtained, for fatty ROIs, a sensitivity of 71.11% at a false positive rate of 7.13 per image. For dense ROIs the sensitivity was 60.76% and the false positive rate, 7.33. The areas (A1) under the AFROC curves were 0.33+/-0.04 and 0.28+/-0.02, respectively. The one-dimensional wavelet transform method yielded 80.44% of sensitivity and 6.43 false positives per image (A1=0.39+/-0.03) for fatty ROIs, and 62.17% and 5.82 false positives per image (A1=0.37+/-0.02) for dense ROIs. For the detection of clusters of microcalcifications in the entire mammogram, the sensitivity was 80.00% with 0.94 false positives per image (A1=0.77+/-0.09) for fatty mammograms, and 72.85% of sensitivity at a false positive detection rate of 2.21 per image (A1=0.64+/-0.07) for dense mammograms. Globally, a sensitivity of 76.43% at a false positive detection rate of 1.57 per image was obtained.

We have developed a model to simulate clustered microcalcifications on digital mammograms. Wavelet transform techniques were used to detect real clustered microcalcifications. A feature analysis process was applied to automatically extract the features describing the individual simulated microcalcifications and clusters from the values of the real clustered microcalcifications present in the mammogram. Subsequently, a database of simulated and real clustered microcalcifications was created. Clusters of microcalcifications from this database were tested for indistinguishability from real ones. Two radiologists and one physicist were asked to indicate whether the microcalcifications were either real or simulated. The responses of the readers were evaluated with a ROC analysis and the area under the curve was calculated. The average ROC area was 0.54 +/- 0.03, indicating there was no statistical difference between real and simulated clustered microcalcifications. The method allows for the creations of simulated clustered microcalcifications that are virtually indistinguishable from real microcalcifications in digital mammograms and could be used to evaluate different image processing techniques.