Andreas Van Steen
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Andreas Van Steen.
European Radiology | 2010
Chantal Van Ongeval; Andreas Van Steen; Gretel Vande Putte; Federica Zanca; Hilde Bosmans; Guy Marchal; Erik Van Limbergen
Objective:To evaluate if the screening performance parameters of digital mammography (DM) in a decentralized screening organization were comparable with film-screen mammography (FSM).Methods:A nationwide screening program was launched in 2001, and since 2005 screening with DM has been allowed. Firstly, the parameters of the three regional screening units (RSUs) that first switched to DM (11,355 women) were compared with the FSM period of the same three RSUs (23,325 women). Secondly, they were compared with the results of the whole central breast unit (CBU).Results:The recall rate (RR) of the DM group in the initial round was 2.64% [2.40% for FSM (p = 0.43)] and in the subsequent round 1.20% [1.58% for FSM (p = 0.03)]. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 0.59% for DM and 0.64% for FSM (p = 0.56). The percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ was 0.07% for DM and 0.16% for FSM (p = 0.02). The positive predictive value was high in the subsequent rounds (DM 48.00%, FSM 45.93%) and lower in the initial round (DM 24.05%, FSM 24.86%). Compared with the results of the whole CBU, DM showed no significant difference.Conclusion:DM can be introduced in a decentralized screening organization with a high CDR without increasing the RR.
Radiation Protection Dosimetry | 2008
Chantal Van Ongeval; Andreas Van Steen; Catherine Geniets; Frederik DeKeyzer; Hilde Bosmans; Guy Marchal
In order to quantify the clinical quality of full-field digital mammography, a set of image quality parameters is developed. The set consisted of 12 image quality criteria and 8 physical characteristics of the image. The first set interrogates the visibility of anatomical structures and typical characteristics of a digital image, such as noise and saturation of dark and white areas. The second set of criteria evaluates contrast, sharpness and confidence with the representation of masses, microcalcifications and the image. The use of these criteria is reported in a retrospective study, in which the impact of dose on the radiological quality of digital mammograms is evaluated. Fifty patients acquired in a low-dose mode were retrieved and compared with 50 patients acquired in a dose mode that was set 41% higher. The dose affects, more than expected, contrast and sharpness of the image, whereas the visibility of the anatomical structures remains unchanged. With these parameters, quantification of the image quality is possible; however, because of subjectivity of the parameters, only intra-observer comparison and evaluation of the individual parameters rather than the overall results are advised. Together with physical tests of image quality, critical radiological evaluation of the quality should be included in the acceptance process of digital mammography.
Breast Journal | 2009
Jeroen Crevits; Andreas Van Steen; Chantal Van Ongeval; Guy Marchal
A 50-year-old obese man with proven history of systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE) presented with a 6-month history of progressive painless enlargement of the right breast, without nipple discharge. At the time of presentation, he had no clinical or serologic evidence of SLE exacerbation. Clinical examination showed an obese man with indeed an asymmetry between both breasts. Only a slight enlargement of the right breast was visible. While palpation strongly suggested lipomastia in the left breast, a diffuse induration could be felt in the right breast without epidermal changes. Mammography revealed coarse pleomorphic calcifications, diffusely spread all over the right breast, similar to fat necrosis calcifications and oil cysts (Fig. 1a). The left mammogram confirmed pseudogynecomastia (Fig. 1b). Review of a recent chest X-ray showed an obese thorax (Fig. 2a,b) and digital magnification of the lateral view confirmed subtle masses in the right breast area, not visible 1 year ago (Fig. 2c). The outcome of the mammary exam and mammography findings, together with the proven history of SLE, lead us to the diagnosis of an advanced lupus mastitis. Lupus mastitis consists of subcutaneous nodules or plaques, with or without epidermal manifestations, usually leaving persistent areas of lipoatrophy. Those
Medical Physics | 2016
Elena Salvagnini; Hilde Bosmans; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andreas Van Steen; Koen Michielsen; Lesley Cockmartin; Lara Struelens; Nicholas Marshall
PURPOSE The aim of this work was twofold: (1) to examine whether, with standard automatic exposure control (AEC) settings that maintain pixel values in the detector constant, lesion detectability in clinical images decreases as a function of breast thickness and (2) to verify whether a new AEC setup can increase lesion detectability at larger breast thicknesses. METHODS Screening patient images, acquired on two identical digital mammography systems, were collected over a period of 2 yr. Mammograms were acquired under standard AEC conditions (part 1) and subsequently with a new AEC setup (part 2), programmed to use the standard AEC settings for compressed breast thicknesses ≤49 mm, while a relative dose increase was applied above this thickness. The images were divided into four thickness groups: T1 ≤ 29 mm, T2 = 30-49 mm, T3 = 50-69 mm, and T4 ≥ 70 mm, with each thickness group containing 130 randomly selected craniocaudal lesion-free images. Two measures of density were obtained for every image: a BI-RADS score and a map of volumetric breast density created with a software application (VolparaDensity, Matakina, NZ). This information was used to select subsets of four images, containing one image from each thickness group, matched to a (global) BI-RADS score and containing a region with the same (local) volpara volumetric density value. One selected lesion (a microcalcification cluster or a mass) was simulated into each of the four images. This process was repeated so that, for a given thickness group, half the images contained a single lesion and half were lesion-free. The lesion templates created and inserted in groups T3 and T4 for the first part of the study were then inserted into the images of thickness groups T3 and T4 acquired with higher dose settings. Finally, all images were visualized using the ViewDEX software and scored by four radiologists performing a free search study. A statistical jackknife-alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis was applied. RESULTS For part 1, the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic curves for the four readers were 0.80, 0.65, 0.55 and 0.56 in going from T1 to T4, indicating a decrease in detectability with increasing breast thickness. P-values and the 95% confidence interval showed no significant difference for the T3-T4 comparison (p = 0.78) while all the other differences were significant (p < 0.05). Separate analysis of microcalcification clusters presented the same results while for mass detection, the only significant difference came when comparing T1 to the other thickness groups. Comparing the scores of part 1 and part 2, results for the T3 group acquired with the new AEC setup and T3 group at standard AEC doses were significantly different (p = 0.0004), indicating improved detection. For this group a subanalysis for microcalcification detection gave the same results while no significant difference was found for mass detection. CONCLUSIONS These data using clinical images confirm results found in simple QA tests for many mammography systems that detectability falls as breast thickness increases. Results obtained with the AEC setup for constant detectability above 49 mm showed an increase in lesion detection with compressed breast thickness, bringing detectability of lesions to the same level.
Medical Physics | 2003
Ann-Katherine Carton; Hilde Bosmans; Chantal Van Ongeval; Geert Souverijns; Frank Rogge; Andreas Van Steen; Guy Marchal
European Radiology | 2013
Hilde Bosmans; An De Hauwere; Kim Lemmens; Federica Zanca; Hubert Thierens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Koen Van Herck; Andreas Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Luc Bleyen; Gretel Vande Putte; Eliane Kellen; Griet Mortier; Erik Van Limbergen
Radiation Protection Dosimetry | 2008
Chantal Van Ongeval; Andreas Van Steen; Hilde Bosmans
Annals of Oncology | 2012
O Brouckaert; Ben Van Calster; Kirsten Van Hoorde; Erik Van Limbergen; Hans Wildiers; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andreas Van Steen; Ignace Vergote; Rose Christiaens; Patrick Neven
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | 2008
Jurgen Jacobs; Tom Deprez; Andreas Van Steen; Chantal Van Ongeval; Erwin Bellon; Guy Marchal; Hilde Bosmans
Ejc Supplements | 2006
Willem Lybaert; Hans Wildiers; Paul Clement; Frédéric Amant; Marie-Rose Christiaens; Erik Van Limbergen; Caroline Weltens; Maria Drijkoningen; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andreas Van Steen; Robert Paridaens