Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating clinical implications of 15-mega-sub-pixel liquid-crystal display in phase-contrast mammography

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Phase-contrast mammography (PCM) systems characteristically yield sharp images with edge enhancement and high-resolution 25-μm/pixel mammograms. However, not all PCM image information can be shown on the display at a resolution of 5-megapixel (5-MP), although 5-MP monitors are recommended for interpretation of digital mammograms. Therefore, we investigated the potential utility of a 15-mega-sub-pixel (15-MsP) display for PCM images.

Methods

We used a monitor that offered both 5-MP and 15-MsP displays by using a sub-pixel drive (SPD) technique to increase the spatial resolution of the monitor by threefold in the direction of the sub-pixels. Contrast-detail mammography phantom images were evaluated visually by four radiologic technologists. In this study, four display magnification ratios were used and the calculated image quality figures (IQFs) were compared with those of a 5-MP display.

Results

The detection capability of the 15-MsP display was significantly better than that of the 5-MP display at magnification ratios of 49 and 100 %. At other magnification ratios, the detection capability of the 15-MsP display was higher than that of the 5-MP display, but the difference was not significant.

Conclusions

A 15-MsP display has the potential to provide better detection than that provided by conventional 5-MP displays. A 15-MsP display using SPD technology is suitable for high-resolution digital mammograms, such as those produced by PCM systems.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:671–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology. 2003;229:877–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology. 2007;244:708–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246:376–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Dohery A, Flanagan FL. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1010–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsui Y, Okafuji T, Sakai S, et al. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1365–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yamada T, Suzuki A, Uchiyama N, Ohuchi N, Takahashi S. Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2363–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology. 2005;33:353–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shiraishi A. Current state of digital mammography. Breast Cancer. 2008;15:194–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yamada T. Current status and issues of screening digital mammography in Japan. Breast Cancer. 2010;17:163–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ishibashi T, Kawasumi Y, Yamada T, Sai M, Uematsu T, Uchiyama N. Digital mammographic screening in Japan. Breast Cancer. 2010;17:159–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Honda C, Ohara H, Gido T. Image qualities of phase-contrast mammography. In: Susan Astley M, editor. IWDM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4046. Heidelberg: Springer; 2006. p. 281–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tanaka T, Honda C, Matsuo S, Noma K, Oohara H, Nitta N, et al. The first trial of phase contrast imaging for digital full-field mammography using a practical molybdenum X-ray tube. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:385–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yamazaki A, Ichikawa K, Kodera Y. Investigation of physical image characteristics and phenomenon of edge enhancement by phase contrast using equipment typical for mammography. Med Phys. 2008;35:5134–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morita T, Yamada M, Kano A, Nagatsuka S, Honda C, Endo T. A comparison between film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography utilizing phase contrast technology in breast cancer screening programs. In: Krupinski EA, editor. IWDM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5116. Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 48–54.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ichikawa K, Kodera Y, Nishi Y, Hayashi S, Hasegawa M. Development of a new resolution enhancement technology for medical liquid crystal displays. In: Steven C, Steven Horii C, Katherine P, Katherine Andriole P, editors. Medical imaging 2007: PACS and imaging informatics, vol. 6516. USA: Proc of SPIE; 2007. p. 65160W1–65160W8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ichikawa K, Hasegawa M, Kimura N, Kawashima H, Kodera Y. A new resolution enhancement technology using the independent sub-pixel driving for the medical liquid crystal displays. IEEE J Disp Technol. 2008;4:377–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ichikawa K, Kawashima H, Kimura N, Hasegawa M. Clinical usefulness of super high-resolution liquid crystal displays using independent sub-pixel driving technology. In: Krupinski EA, editor. IWDM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5116. Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 84–90.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nishimura A, Ichikawa K, Mochiya Y, Morishita A, Kawashima H, Yamamoto T, et al. Preliminary investigation of the clinical usefulness of super-high-resolution LCDs with 9 and 15 mega-sub-pixels: observation studies with phantoms. Radiol Phys Technol. 2010;3:70–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yamada S, Hirata Y, Ishii R, Ogawa T. Visual evaluation and usefulness of medical high-resolution liquid-crystal displays with use of independent sub-pixel driving technology. Radiol Phys Technol. 2011;4:12–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function PS 3.14, 2007.

  22. Thomas JA, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek R, Romanyukha A. Contrast–detail phantom scoring methodology. Med Phys. 2005;32:807–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Campanini R, Bertolini M, Borasi G, Nitrosi A, et al. Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast–detail analysis. Med Phys. 2006;33:4198–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. van der Burght R, Thijssen M, Bijkerk R. Manual: contrast–detail phantom CDMAM 3.4. Version 7. Nijmegen: Artinis Medical Systems BV; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Thijssen MAO, Bijkerk KR, van der Burght RJM. Manual: contrast–detail phantom artinis CDRAD type 2.0. Project quality assurance in radiology. Nijmegen: University Medical Center; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ideguchi T, Higashida Y, Himuro K, Ohki M, Nakamura S, Yoshida A, et al. Full-field digital mammography with amorphous silicon-based flat-panel detector: physical imaging characteristics and signal detection (in Japanese with English abstract). Jpn J Radiol Technol. 2004;60:399–405.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bacher K, Smeets P, De Hauwere A, Voet T, Duyck P, Verstraste K, et al. Image quality performance of liquid crystal displays: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast–detail detection. EJR. 2006;58:471–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hatanaka S, Morishita J, Hiwasa T, Dogomori K, Toyofuku F, Ohki M, et al. Comparison of viewing angle and observer performances in different types of liquid-crystal display monitors. Radiol Phys Technol. 2009;2:166–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vahey K, Ryan E, McLean D, Poulos A, Rickard M. A comparison between the electronic magnification (EM) and true magnification (TM) of breast phantom images using a CDMAM phantom. EJR. 2012;81:1514–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. European Commission. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. In: Perry N, Broeders M, Wolf de C, et al., eds. 4th ed. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg 2006.

  31. Matsumoto M, Nishizawa K, Akiyama Y, Horita K, Kato H, Ishioka A. The mean breast thickness for Japanese patients for use in estimating the glandular dose in mammography (in Japanese with English abstract). J Jpn Assoc Breast Cancer Screen. 2000;9:95–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Asada Y, Suzuki S, Yamada M, Sakurai K, Susa H, Maeda S, et al. Effect of breast composition on patient exposure in mammography (in Japanese with English abstract). Japan J Radiol Technol. 2004;60:1675–81.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kawaguchi A, Matsunaga Y, Otsuka T, Suzuki S. Patient investigation of average glandular dose and incident air kerma for digital mammography. Radiol Phys Technol. 2014;7:102–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yamazaki A, Ichikawa K, Kodera Y, Funahashi M. Overall noise characteristics of reduced images on liquid crystal display and advantages of independent subpixel driving technology. Med Phys. 2013;40:21901–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for the Research Recovery Promotion Project (241FS0027) from the Japan Science and Technology Agency.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Imaging, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8575, Japan

    Yumi Takane, Yusuke Kawasumi, Miho Sato, Tsunemitsu Horie & Tadashi Ishibashi

Authors
  1. Yumi Takane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yusuke Kawasumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miho Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tsunemitsu Horie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tadashi Ishibashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yumi Takane.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takane, Y., Kawasumi, Y., Sato, M. et al. Evaluating clinical implications of 15-mega-sub-pixel liquid-crystal display in phase-contrast mammography. Breast Cancer 23, 561–567 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0603-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0603-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation