A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system

被引:90
|
作者
Marshall, N. W. [1 ]
机构
[1] St Bartholomews Hosp, Barts & London NHS Trust, Clin Phys Grp, London EC1A 7BE, England
来源
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY | 2006年 / 51卷 / 10期
关键词
D O I
10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/006
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
This paper presents pre-sampling modulation transfer function (MTF), normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) results for an amorphous selenium (a-Se) full field digital mammography system. MTF was calculated from the image of an angled 0.5 mm thick Cu edge, acquired without additional beam filtration. NNPS data were acquired at detector air-kerma levels ranging from 9.1 mu Gy to 331 mu Gy, using a standard mammography x-ray spectrum of 28 kV, Mo/Mo target/filter combination and 4 cm of PMMA additional filtration. Prior to NNPS estimation, the image statistics were assessed using a variance image. This method was able to easily identify a detector artefact and should prove useful in routine quality assurance (QA) measurements. Detector DQE, calculated from the NNPS and MTF data, dropped to 0.3 for low detector air-kerma settings but reached an approximately constant value of 0.6 above 50 mu Gy at the detector. Subjective image quality data were also obtained at these detector air-kerma settings using the CDMAM contrast-detail (c-d) test object. The c-d data reflected the trend seen in DQE, with threshold contrast increasing at low detector air-kerma values. The c-d data were then compared against predictions made using two established models, the Rose model and a standard signal detection theory model. Using DQE(0), the Rose model gave results within approximately 15% on average for all the detector air-kerma values studied and for detail diameters down to 0.2 mm. Similar agreement was also found between the measured c-d data and the signal detection theory results, which were calculated using an ideal human visual response function and a system magnification of unity. The use of full spatial frequency DQE improved the agreement between the calculated and observer results for detail sizes below 0.13 mm.
引用
收藏
页码:2441 / 2463
页数:23
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: An overview
    Bosmans, H
    Carton, AK
    Rogge, F
    Zanca, F
    Jacobs, J
    Van Ongeval, C
    Nijs, K
    Van Steen, A
    Marchal, G
    [J]. RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 2005, 117 (1-3) : 120 - 130
  • [2] Comparison of Image Quality Criteria between Digital Storage Phosphor Plate in Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography in the Detection of Breast Cancer
    Pushpa, Thevi Rajendran
    Vijayalakshmi, Krishnapillai
    Sulaiman, Tamanang
    Kanaga, Kumari Chelliah
    [J]. MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2012, 19 (01): : 52 - 59
  • [3] Comparison of Two Full Field Digital Mammography Systems: Image Quality and Radiation Dose
    Merad, A.
    Saadi, S.
    Khelassi-Toutaoui, N.
    [J]. 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RADIATIONS AND APPLICATIONS (ICRA-2017), 2018, 1994
  • [4] Comparison of slot scanning digital mammography system with full-field digital mammography system
    Lai, Chao-Jen
    Shaw, Chris C.
    Geiser, William
    Chen, Lingyun
    Arribas, Elsa
    Stephens, Tanya
    Davis, Paul L.
    Ayyar, Geetha P.
    Dogan, Basak E.
    Nguyen, Victoria A.
    Whitman, Gary J.
    Yang, Wei T.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (06) : 2339 - 2346
  • [5] Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography:: image quality and lesion detection
    Fischmann, A
    Siegmann, KC
    Wersebe, A
    Claussen, CD
    Müller-Schimpfle, M
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 78 (928): : 312 - 315
  • [6] Comparison of full-field digital vs conventional mammography: Image quality and lesion detectability
    Obenauer, S
    Luftner-Nagel, S
    Von Heyden, D
    Baum, FT
    Grabbe, EH
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 : 284 - 284
  • [7] Comparison of noise characteristics between CR system and full-field digital mammography system
    Kobayashi, H
    Tanikoshi, M
    Uchiyaman, ST
    Suzuki, T
    Kumazaki, T
    [J]. DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2003, : 72 - 74
  • [8] A comparison of image interpretation times in Full Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Astley, Susan
    Connor, Sophie
    Lim, Yit
    Tate, Catriona
    Entwistle, Helen
    Morris, Julie
    Whiteside, Sigrid
    Sergeant, Jamie
    Wilson, Mary
    Beetles, Ursula
    Boggis, Caroline
    Gilbert, Fiona
    [J]. MEDICAL IMAGING 2013: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2013, 8673
  • [9] Comparison of Mass Size Measurements: Synthesized Mammography Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Sendur, Halit Nahit
    Cerit, Mahi Nur
    Gultekin, Serap
    Cindil, Emetullah
    Kilic, Pinar
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2020, 27 (06) : 766 - 773
  • [10] Comparison of the microcalcifications between full-field digital mammography and screen film mammography
    Tohno, E
    Kujiraoka, Y
    Watanabe, Y
    Itai, Y
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 : 189 - 189