How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?'

被引:38
|
作者
Huda, W
Sajewicz, AM
Ogden, KM
Scalzetti, EM
Dance, DR
机构
[1] SUNY Upstate Med Univ, Dept Radiol, Syracuse, NY 13210 USA
[2] Royal Marsden NHS Trust, Dept Med Phys, London, England
关键词
American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom; digital mammography; image quality; observer performance; radiation dose; radiographic techniques;
D O I
10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80345-8
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Rationale and Objectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography. Materials and Methods. Digital images were obtained of an ACR accreditation phantom at varying mAs (constant kVp) and varying kVp (constant mAs). The average glandular dose for a breast with 50% glandularity was determined for each technique factor. Images were displayed on a 5 mega-pixel monitor, with the window width and level settings individually optimized for viewing the fibers, specks, and masses in the ACR phantom. Digital images of the ACR phantom were presented in a random manner to eight observers, each of whom indicated the number of objects visible in each image. Results. Intraobserver variability was greater than interobserver variability for the detection of fibers and specks, but the reverse was true for the detection of masses. As the mAs increased, the number of fibers visible increased from less than one at 5 mAs to all six being visible at 80 mAs. The corresponding number of visible specks increased from 12 to 24, and the number of visible masses increased from 1.25 to about four. Above 26 kVp, object visibility was constant with increasing x-ray tube voltage. Reducing the x-ray tube voltage to 24 kVp, however, reduced the number of visible fibers from six to five, the number of visible specks from 24 to 21.1, and the number of visible masses from four to 3.1. Observer performance was approximately constant for average glandular doses greater than 1.6 mGy, so that the range of lesion delectability in the ACR phantom occurs at doses lower than those normally encountered in clinical practice. Conclusion. The current design of the ACR phantom is unsatisfactory for assessing image quality in digital mammography.
引用
收藏
页码:764 / 772
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom
    Song, Sung Eun
    Seo, Bo Kyoung
    Yie, An
    Ku, Bon Kyung
    Kim, Hee-Young
    Cho, Kyu Ran
    Chung, Hwan Hoon
    Lee, Seung Hwa
    Hwang, Kyu-Won
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2012, 13 (06) : 776 - 783
  • [2] ACR mammography accreditation program's early digital mammography results
    Butler, P.
    Yaffe, M.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2166 - 2166
  • [3] Comparison of computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI) with perceived image quality of phantom targets in the ACR phantom
    Chakraborty, DP
    IMAGE PERCEPTION: MEDICAL IMAGING 1997, 1997, 3036 : 160 - 167
  • [4] Optimizing quality of digital mammographic imaging using Taguchi analysis with an ACR accreditation phantom
    Chen, Ching-Yuan
    Pan, Lung-Fa
    Chiang, Fu-Tsai
    Yeh, Da-Ming
    Pan, Lung-Kwang
    BIOENGINEERED, 2016, 7 (04) : 226 - 234
  • [5] Optimizing Digital Mammographic Image Quality via Taguchi-based Grey Analysis: An ACR Accreditation Phantom Study
    Pan, Lung-Kwang
    Yeh, Da-Ming
    2016 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NATURAL COMPUTATION, FUZZY SYSTEMS AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY (ICNC-FSKD), 2016, : 1032 - 1037
  • [6] Digital mammography quality control and accreditation
    Butler, P.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2178 - 2178
  • [7] ACR–AAPM–SIIM Practice Guideline for Determinants of Image Quality in Digital Mammography
    Kalpana M. Kanal
    Elizabeth Krupinski
    Eric A. Berns
    William R. Geiser
    Andrew Karellas
    Martha B. Mainiero
    Melissa C. Martin
    Samir B. Patel
    Daniel L. Rubin
    Jon D. Shepard
    Eliot L. Siegel
    Judith A. Wolfman
    Tariq A. Mian
    Mary C. Mahoney
    Margaret Wyatt
    Journal of Digital Imaging, 2013, 26 : 10 - 25
  • [8] Image and dosimetry quality control for digital mammography by using the Normi Mam Digital phantom
    Calderon-Mata, Angelica
    Arce-Corrales, Luis
    Mejias-Gamboa, Ricardo
    UNICIENCIA, 2018, 32 (02) : 70 - 81
  • [9] Effectiveness RMI-156 Mammography Accreditation Phantom in Evaluating Digital Mammography Systems
    Rajapakshe, R.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (09) : 4305 - 4305
  • [10] Mammography Accreditation Phantom Variation: Effects On Quality Control Measurements
    Fisher, R.
    Hulme, K.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 3103 - 3103