Table of Contents

• Improvements to Single Energy Absorptiometry Method for Digital Mammography to Quantify Breast Tissue DensitySerghei Malkov, Jeff Wang, John Shepherd. 1-8 [doi]
• Breast Density Segmentation: A Comparison of Clustering and Region Based TechniquesA. Torrent, Anton Bardera, Arnau Oliver, Jordi Freixenet, Imma Boada, M. Feixes, Robert Marti, Xavier Lladó, Josep Pont, Elsa Pérez, S. Pedraza, Joan Martí. 9-16 [doi]
• Mammographic Segmentation Based on Texture Modelling of Tabár Mammographic Building BlocksWenda He, Izzati Muhimmah, Erika R. E. Denton, Reyer Zwiggelaar. 17-24 [doi]
• Analyzing Tree-Like Structures in Biomedical Images Based on Texture and Branching: An Application to Breast ImagingMichael Barnathan, Jingjing Zhang, Despina Kontos, Predrag R. Bakic, Andrew D. A. Maidment, Vasileios Megalooikonomou. 25-32 [doi]
• Volumetric Assessment of Breast Tissue Composition from FFDM ImagesKeith Hartman, Ralph Highnam, Ruth Warren, Valerie Jackson. 33-39 [doi]
• Effect of Image Quality on Film ReadingSusan M. Astley, Neil Prasad, Eve Allcock, Jennifer Diffey, Yit Yoong Lim, Caroline R. M. Boggis. 40-47 [doi]
• A Comparison between Film-Screen Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography Utilizing Phase Contrast Technology in Breast Cancer Screening ProgramsTakako Morita, Maya Yamada, Akiko Kano, Sumiya Nagatsuka, Chika Honda, Tokiko Endo. 48-54 [doi]
• Impact of Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: Initial Experience in a National Breast Screening ProgramN. Hambly, Niall Phelan, G. Hargaden, A. O Doherty, F. Flanagan. 55-60 [doi]
• Clinical Performance of Breast Tomosynthesis as a Function of Radiologist Experience LevelAndrew P. Smith, Elizabeth A. Rafferty, Loren Niklason. 61-66 [doi]
• BIRADS Classification in Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Mammography and UltrasonographyAnders Tingberg, Ingvar Andersson, Debra M. Ikeda, Mark Ruschin, Tony Svahn, Pontus Timberg. 67-73 [doi]
• Stereoscopic Digital Mammography: Improved Accuracy of Lesion Detection in Breast Cancer ScreeningDavid J. Getty, Carl J. D Orsi, Ronald M. Pickett. 74-79 [doi]
• Potential Role of FDG-PET Imaging in Defining Biology of Primary Breast LesionsS. Basu, A. Mavi, T. Cermik, R. Kumar, A. Alavi. 80-83 [doi]
• Clinical Usefulness of Super High-Resolution Liquid Crystal Displays Using Independent Sub-pixel Driving TechnologyKatsuhiro Ichikawa, Hiroko Kawashima, Naohiro Kimura, Mikio Hasegawa. 84-90 [doi]
• The Effect of Tomosynthesis X-Ray Pulse Width on Measured Beam QualityBaorui Ren, Andrew Smith, David Aizer, Don Kennedy, Jeffrey Yorker, Zhenxue Jing. 91-98 [doi]
• Tomographic Dual Modality Breast ScannerMark B. Williams, Patricia Goodale Judy, Mitali J. More, Jennifer A. Harvey, Stan Majewski, James Proffitt, John McKisson, Alexander V. Stolin, Brian Kross, Alexander Stewart, Edward Bullard, Manish Kankaria, Roman Janer. 99-107 [doi]
• Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Method Using a Full Field Digital Mammography SystemAurelie Laidevant, Serghei Malkov, Alfred Au, John Shepherd. 108-115 [doi]
• Optimization of a Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Technique for a Photon Counting Digital Breast Tomosynthesis SystemAnn-Katherine Carton, Christer Ullberg, Karin Lindman, Tom Francke, Andrew D. A. Maidment. 116-123 [doi]
• Simulation and Phantom Studies of Contrast-Enhanced Dual Energy Mammography (CEDEM)Shih-Ying Huang, John M. Boone, Dandan Zheng, Kai Yang, Nathan J. Packard, George Burkett. 124-129 [doi]
• Preliminary Evaluation of a Phase Contrast Imaging with Digital MammographySatoru Matsuo, Hiroshi Fujita, Junji Morishita, Tetsuro Katafuchi, Chika Honda, Junko Sugiyama. 130-136 [doi]
• Prompting in Mammography: ReproducibilityStephanie Tiew, Sue Astley, Bernice Dillon, Julie Morris, Caroline R. M. Boggis. 137-142 [doi]
• Synthesising Abnormal Structures in Mammograms Using Pyramid DecompositionMichael Berks, Chris Rose, Caroline R. M. Boggis, Susan M. Astley. 143-150 [doi]
• Computer-Aided Microcalcification Detection on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Data: A Preliminary EvaluationSylvain Bernard, Serge Muller, Jon Onativia. 151-157 [doi]
• Temporal Analysis of Mammograms Based on Graph MatchingFei Ma, Mariusz Bajger, Murk J. Bottema. 158-165 [doi]
• Temporal Subtraction Versus Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Pilot StudyAnn-Katherine Carton, Jean Anne Currivan, Emily F. Conant, Andrew D. A. Maidment. 166-173 [doi]
• Texture-Based Simultaneous Registration and Segmentation of Breast DCE-MRIYang Can Gong, Michael Brady. 174-180 [doi]
• A CDMAM Image Phantom Software Improvement for Human Observer AssessmentGabriel Prieto, Margarita Chevalier, Eduardo Guibelalde. 181-187 [doi]
• Computerized Classification of Mammary Gland Patterns in Whole Breast Ultrasound ImagesYuji Ikedo, Takako Morita, Daisuke Fukuoka, Takeshi Hara, Hiroshi Fujita, Etsuo Takada, Tokiko Endo. 188-195 [doi]
• Comparison between Physical Image Quality as Measured by a Newly Developed Phantom Dedicated for Digital Mammography QC and That by European Guidelines MethodsTetsuro Kusunoki, Masahiro Tagi, Kenji Yosikawa, Hiroshi Arai, Nachiko Uchiyama, Chieko Nagashima, Hiroyuki Kobayashi. 196-203 [doi]
• Assuring Authenticity of Digital Mammograms by Image WatermarkingAnthony J. Maeder, Jason Dowling, Anthony Nguyen, Emma Brunton, Phuong Nguyen. 204-211 [doi]
• Different Search Patterns and Similar Decision Outcomes: How Can Experts Agree in the Decisions They Make When Reading Digital Mammograms?Claudia Mello-Thoms, Marie A. Ganott, Jules H. Sumkin, Christiane M. Hakim, Cynthia Britton, Luisa P. Wallace, Lara Hardesty. 212-219 [doi]
• Optimization of Tomosynthesis Acquisition Parameters: Angular Range and Number of ProjectionsThomas Mertelmeier, Jasmina Ludwig, Bo Zhao, Wei Zhao. 220-227 [doi]
• Subtle Abnormalities in Highly Dense Breasts Detected by Use of a Digital Phase Contrast Mammography System: A Report of Three Invasive Cancer Cases in the Early StageTakako Morita, Maya Yamada, Akiko Kano, Sumiya Nagatsuka, Chika Honda, Tokiko Endo. 228-234 [doi]
• Image Quality Assessment and Equipment Optimisation with Automated Phantom Evaluation in Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)Nadia Oberhofer, Nicoletta Paruccini, Ehrenfried Moroder. 235-242 [doi]
• Breast Mass Detection under Increased Ambient LightingBenjamin J. Pollard, Amarpreet S. Chawla, Noriyuki Hashimoto, Ehsan Samei. 243-248 [doi]
• Reducing Noise of Medical Grade Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD) and Its Relation to the Detection of Micro-calcificationsHans Roehrig, Jiahua Fan, William J. Dallas, Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Jeffrey Johnson. 249-256 [doi]
• An Ontology to Support Adaptive Training for Breast RadiologistsShanghua Sun, Paul Taylor, Louise Wilkinson, Lisanne Khoo. 257-264 [doi]
• A Web Database for Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis of Medical ImagesDave Tahmoush, Hanan Samet. 265-272 [doi]
• An Interactive Computer Aided Decision Support System for Detection of Masses in MammogramsNico Karssemeijer, Andrea Hupse, Maurice Samulski, Michiel Kallenberg, Carla Boetes, Gerard den Heeten. 273-278 [doi]
• Detection of Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Mammography: Effects of the Number of Projection Views and DoseHeang-Ping Chan, Jun Wei, Yiheng Zhang, Berkman Sahiner, Lubomir M. Hadjiiski, Mark A. Helvie. 279-285 [doi]
• Effect of Similarity Metrics and ROI Sizes in Featureless Computer Aided Detection of Breast Masses in TomosynthesisSwatee Singh, Georgia D. Tourassi, Joseph Y. Lo. 286-291 [doi]
• Knowledge Transfer across Breast Cancer Screening Modalities: A Pilot Study Using an Information-Theoretic CADe System for Mass DetectionGeorgia D. Tourassi, Amy C. Sharma, Swatee Singh, Robert S. Saunders, Joseph Y. Lo, Ehsan Samei, Brian P. Harrawood. 292-298 [doi]
• Gradient Vector Flow Fields and Spiculated Mass Detection in Digital Mammography ImagesFengmei Zou, Yufeng Zheng, Zhengdong Zhou, Kwabena Agyepong. 299-306 [doi]
• The Evaluation of Effects on Breast Cancer Diagnoses When Using Mammographic Semantic InformationDa Qi, Erika R. E. Denton, Joanna M. E. Leason, Diaa Othman, Reyer Zwiggelaar. 307-314 [doi]
• Computerized Scheme for Focal Asymmetric Densities on Mammograms by Use of Geometric and Texture AnalysesShinsuke Katsuhara, Hitoshi Futamura, Satoshi Kasai, Takako Morita, Tokiko Endo. 315-322 [doi]
• Identifying Corresponding Lesions from CC and MLO Views Via Correlative Feature AnalysisYading Yuan, Maryellen L. Giger, Hui Li, Li Lan, Charlene A. Sennett. 323-328 [doi]
• Case-Specific Reliability Assessment for Improved False Positive Reduction with an Information-Theoretic CAD SystemPiotr A. Habas, Jacek M. Zurada, Georgia D. Tourassi. 329-335 [doi]
• Computerized Detection and Classification of Malignant and Benign Microcalcifications on Full Field Digital MammogramsLubomir M. Hadjiiski, Peter Filev, Heang-Ping Chan, Jun Ge, Berkman Sahiner, Mark A. Helvie, Marilyn A. Roubidoux. 336-342 [doi]
• The Effect of Training Sample Size on Performance of Mass DetectionMichiel Kallenberg, Nico Karssemeijer. 343-349 [doi]
• Multiple-Instance Learning Improves CAD Detection of Masses in Digital MammographyBalaji Krishnapuram, Jonathan Stoeckel, Vikas C. Raykar, R. Bharat Rao, Philippe Bamberger, Eli Ratner, Nicolas Merlet, Inna Stainvas, Menahem Abramov, Alexandra Manevitch. 350-357 [doi]
• Optimizing the CAD Process for Detecting Mammographic Lesions by a New Generation Algorithm Using Linear Classifiers and a Gradient Based ApproachPhilippe Bamberger, Isaac Leichter, Nicolas Merlet, Eli Ratner, Glenn Fung, Richard Lederman. 358-365 [doi]
• Reliability Assessment of Ensemble Classifiers: Application in MammographyMaciej A. Mazurowski, Jacek M. Zurada, Georgia D. Tourassi. 366-370 [doi]
• Breast Mass Classification on Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film MammographyJiazheng Shi, Berkman Sahiner, Heang-Ping Chan, Lubomir M. Hadjiiski, Jun Ge, Jun Wei. 371-377 [doi]
• Detection of Microcalcifications Using a Nonuniform Noise ModelGuido van Schie, Nico Karssemeijer. 378-384 [doi]
• The Breast Biomechanics Reference State for Multi-modal Image AnalysisVijay Rajagopal, Martyn P. Nash, Ralph Highnam, Poul M. F. Nielsen. 385-392 [doi]
• An Ideal Observer for a Model of X-Ray Imaging in Breast Parenchymal TissueCraig K. Abbey, John M. Boone. 393-400 [doi]
• Statistical Appearance Models of Mammographic MassesMichael Berks, Steven Caulkin, Rumana Rahim, Caroline R. M. Boggis, Susan M. Astley. 401-408 [doi]
• Validation of a Digital Mammography Image Simulation Chain with Automated Scoring of CDMAM ImagesMary Yip, Abdulaziz Alsager, Emma Lewis, Kevin Wells, Kenneth C. Young. 409-416 [doi]
• Comparison of Two Methods to Develop Breast Models for Simulation of Breast Tomosynthesis and CTJ. Michael O Connor, Mini Das, Clay Didier, Mufeed Mahmoud, Stephen J. Glick. 417-425 [doi]
• Statistical Deformation Models of Breast Compressions from Biomechanical SimulationsChristine Tanner, John H. Hipwell, David J. Hawkes. 426-432 [doi]
• Classification of Benign and Malignant Masses in Ultrasound Breast Image Based on Geometric and Echo FeaturesGobert N. Lee, Daisuke Fukuoka, Yuji Ikedo, Takeshi Hara, Hiroshi Fujita, Etsuo Takada, Tokiko Endo, Takako Morita. 433-439 [doi]
• Validation of Cone-Beam CT Measurements of Tumour Burden Using Three-Dimensional Histopathology: Initial Results For a LumpectomyGina M. Clarke, James G. Mainprize, C. Peressotti, L. Sun, D. Wang, J. T. Zubovits, C. M. B. Holloway, G. J. Czarnota, Martin J. Yaffe. 440-446 [doi]
• A Tool for Temporal Comparison of Mammograms: Image Toggling and Dense-Tissue-Preserving RegistrationAkira Hasegawa, Huzefa Neemuchwala, Hiroko Tsunoda-Shimizu, Satoru Honda, Kazuo Shimura, Minoru Sato, Tomomi Koyama, Mari Kikuchi, Sonoe Hiramatsu. 447-454 [doi]
• Development of Whole Breast Ultrasound Viewer and Automated Mass Detection SystemTakeshi Hara, Daisuke Fukuoka, Yuji Ikedo, Etsuo Takada, Hiroshi Fujita, Tokiko Endo, Takako Morita. 455-462 [doi]
• Automated Registration of Volumes of Interest for a Combined X-Ray Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound Breast Imaging SystemMitchell M. Goodsitt, Heang-Ping Chan, Lubomir M. Hadjiiski, Gerald L. LeCarpentier, Paul L. Carson. 463-468 [doi]
• Estimating Individual Cancer Risks in the UK National Breast Screening Programme: A Feasibility StudyJennifer Diffey, Alan Hufton, Susan M. Astley, Claire Elizabeth Mercer, Anthony Maxwell. 469-476 [doi]
• Clinical Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography: Preliminary ResultsGisella Gennaro, Enrica Baldan, Elisabetta Bezzon, Manuela La Grassa, Luigi Pescarini, Cosimo di Maggio. 477-482 [doi]
• Analysis of Anatomical Linear Structure Information in Mammographic Risk AssessmentEdward M. Hadley, Erika R. E. Denton, Josep Pont, Elsa Pérez, Reyer Zwiggelaar. 483-490 [doi]
• Evaluating the Effect of Tomosynthesis Acquisition Parameters on Image Texture: A Study Based on an Anthropomorphic Breast Tissue Software ModelDespina Kontos, Cuiping Zhang, Nicole V. Ruiter, Predrag R. Bakic, Andrew D. A. Maidment. 491-498 [doi]
• Computer Aided Detection (CAD) for Digital Mammography: A Retrospective Reading Study for Consideration on Utilizing CAD Most EffectivelyYoshifumi Kuroki, Shigeru Nawano, Seiko Suzuki, Hideya Takeo, Shigeru Saotome. 499-503 [doi]
• Does a Mammography CAD Algorithm with Varying Filtering Levels of Detection Marks, Used to Reduce the False Mark Rate, Adversely Affect the Detection of Small Masses?Isaac Leichter, Richard Lederman, Eli Ratner, Nicolas Merlet, Glenn Fung, Balaji Krishnapuram, Philippe Bamberger. 504-509 [doi]
• Performance of CADx on a Large Clinical Database of FFDM ImagesHui Li, Maryellen L. Giger, Yading Yuan, Li Lan, Charlene A. Sennett. 510-514 [doi]
• Expedited Breast Care: A New Model in Breast HealthA. M. Lopez, G. Barker, A. Bhattacharryya, K. Scott, M. Descour, L. Richter, J. Davenport, S. Lazarus, L. Kreykes, A. Valencia, R. Weinstein. 515-521 [doi]
• Effect of Using Tungsten-Anode X-Ray Tubes on Dose and Image Quality in Full-Field Digital MammographyJennifer M. Oduko, Kenneth C. Young, Ozcan Gundogdu, Abdulaziz Alsager. 522-529 [doi]
• Assessment of Low Energies and Slice Depth in the Quantification of Breast TomosynthesisChristina M. Shafer, Ehsan Samei, Thomas Mertelmeier, Robert S. Saunders, Moustafa Zerhouni, Joseph Y. Lo. 530-536 [doi]
• Comparison of Multiple View Strategies to Reduce False Positives in Breast ImagingJoerg Teubl, Horst Bischof. 537-544 [doi]
• Image Correction and Reconstruction for Breast BiopsyMeritxell Tortajada, Robert Marti, Jordi Freixenet, Josep Fernández, Melcior Sentís. 545-552 [doi]
• Progress Toward a Quantitative Scale for Describing Radiodensity in Mammographic ImagesChristopher Tromans, Michael Brady, Dominique Van de Sompel, Michele Lorenzon, Massimo Bazzocchi, Chiara Zuiani. 553-560 [doi]
• Systematic Performance Analysis of SART as Applied to Digital Breast TomosynthesisDominique Van de Sompel, Michael Brady. 561-569 [doi]
• Optimizing the Target-Filter Combination in Digital Mammography in the Sense of Image Quality and Average Glandular DoseMari Varjonen, Pekka Strömmer. 570-576 [doi]
• Generic Infrastructure for Medical Informatics (GIMI): The Development of a Mammographic Training SystemMoi Hoon Yap, Alastair G. Gale, Hazel J. Scott. 577-584 [doi]
• Evaluation of 3D Breast Surface Reconstruction Accuracy Using Non-contact Scanner Images: A Phantom StudyCuiping Zhang, Predrag R. Bakic, Shugao Xia, Fengshan Liu, Andrew D. A. Maidment. 585-592 [doi]
• Investigation of Different PV Distributions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) MammographyYiheng Zhang, Heang-Ping Chan, Mitchell M. Goodsitt, Andrea Schmitz, Jeffrey W. Eberhard, Bernhard E. H. Claus. 593-600 [doi]
• Characterization of Projection Ordering in Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Breast TomosynthesisGang Wu, James G. Mainprize, Martin J. Yaffe. 601-605 [doi]
• Effect of Scan Angle and Reconstruction Algorithm on Model Observer Performance in TomosynthesisIngrid S. Reiser, B. A. Lau, Robert M. Nishikawa. 606-611 [doi]
• A Novel Approach for Filtered Backprojection in Tomosynthesis Based on Filter Kernels Determined by Iterative Reconstruction TechniquesJasmina Ludwig, Thomas Mertelmeier, Holger Kunze, Wolfgang Härer. 612-620 [doi]
• 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Using Total Variation RegularizationIason Kastanis, Simon R. Arridge, Alex Stewart, Spencer Gunn, Christer Ullberg, Tom Francke. 621-627 [doi]
• Image Artifact in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Its Dependence on System and Reconstruction ParametersYue-Houng Hu, Wei Zhao, Thomas Mertelmeier, Jasmina Ludwig. 628-634 [doi]
• Multi-projection Correlation Imaging as a New Diagnostic Tool for Improved Breast Cancer DetectionAmarpreet S. Chawla, Ehsan Samei, Joseph Y. Lo, Thomas Mertelmeier. 635-642 [doi]
• Sensitivity of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Changes in Iodine Concentration during AcquisitionMelissa L. Hill, James G. Mainprize, Martin J. Yaffe. 643-650 [doi]
• Quantifying Breast Thickness for Density MeasurementJennifer Diffey, Alan Hufton, Christine Beeston, Julia Smith, Tom Marchant, Susan M. Astley. 651-658 [doi]
• Effect of Tissue Thickness Variation in Volumetric Breast Density EstimationOlivier Alonzo-Proulx, Albert H. Tyson, Gordon E. Mawdsley, Martin J. Yaffe. 659-666 [doi]
• Breast Abnormality Detection Incorporating Breast Density Information Based on Independent Components AnalysisStyliani Petroudi, Nicoletta Nicolaou, Julius Georgiou, Michael Brady. 667-673 [doi]
• Comparison of Breast Percent Density Estimated from Digital Mammograms and Central Reconstructed Tomosynthesis Slice ImagesPredrag R. Bakic, Despina Kontos, Andrea B. Troxel, Andrew D. A. Maidment. 674-680 [doi]
• Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Parenchymal Texture Analysis for Breast Cancer Risk Estimation: A Preliminary StudyDespina Kontos, Predrag R. Bakic, Andrea B. Troxel, Emily F. Conant, Andrew D. A. Maidment. 681-688 [doi]
• Texture Based Segmentation of Breast DCE-MRIYang Can Gong, Michael Brady. 689-695 [doi]
• Image Quality Measurements in Breast TomosynthesisRuben E. van Engen, Ramona Bouwman, Roeland van der Burght, Barbara Lazzari, David R. Dance, Patrice Heid, Magnus Aslund, Kenneth C. Young. 696-702 [doi]
• One Year of Experience with Remote Quality Assurance of Digital Mammography Systems in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening ProgramJürgen Jacobs, Kim Lemmens, Joris Nens, Koen Michielsen, Guy Marchal, Hilde Bosmans. 703-710 [doi]
• Automatic Exposure Control in Digital Mammography: Contrast-to-Noise Ratio Versus Average Glandular DoseGisella Gennaro, Paola Golinelli, Elena Bellan, Paola Colombo, Loredana D Ercole, Anna Di Nallo, Lara Gallo, Carlo Giordano, Gabriele Meliadò, Barbara Morri, Elvina Nassivera, Nadia Oberhofer, Daniela Origgi, Massimiliano Paolucci, Nicoletta Paruccini, Michela Piergentili, Elisa Rizzi, Raffaella Rossi. 711-715 [doi]
• Effect of Anode/Filter Combination on the Dose and Image Quality of a Digital Mammography System Based on an Amorphous Selenium DetectorPaola Baldelli, Niall Phelan, Gillian Egan. 716-723 [doi]
• Comparative Technical Study of Two Generations of CR Plates for Digital MammographyHilde Bosmans, Kim Lemmens, Jürgen Jacobs, Beatrijs Verbrugge, Koen Michielsen, Federica Zanca, Joris Nens, Chantal Van Ongeval, Guy Marchal. 724-731 [doi]
• Comparing the Performance of Digital Mammography SystemsKenneth C. Young, Jennifer M. Oduko, Ozcan Gundogdu, Abdulaziz Alsager. 732-739 [doi]
• Cross-Calibration and Longitudinal Quality Control of Hologic Selenia Full-Field Digital Mammography Systems for Volumetric Breast Density MeasurementsJeff Wang, Serghei Malkov, Bo Fan, John Shepherd. 740-747 [doi]
• Classification of Artifacts in Clinical Digital MammographyChantal Van Ongeval, Jürgen Jacobs, André Van Steen, Federica Zanca, Hilde Bosmans, Guy Marchal. 748-755 [doi]
• Contrast Sensitivity in Mammographic Softcopy Reading - Determination with Psychophysical ProceduresDörte Apelt, Heinz-Otto Peitgen. 756-763 [doi]