Comparison of signal to noise ratios from spatial and frequency domain formulations of nonprewhitening model observers in digital mammography.

PURPOSE Image quality indices based upon model observers are promising alternatives to laborious human readings of contrast-detail images. This is especially appealing in digital mammography as limiting values for contrast thresholds determine, according to some international protocols, the acceptability of these systems in the radiological practice. The objective of the present study was to compare the signal to noise ratios (SNR) obtained with two nonprewhitening matched filter model observer approaches, one in the spatial domain and the other in the frequency domain, and with both of them worked out for disks as present in the CDMAM phantom. METHODS The analysis was performed using images acquired with the Siemens Novation and Inspiration digital mammography systems. The spatial domain formulation uses a series of high dose CDMAM images as the signal and a routine exposure of two flood images to calculate the covariance matrix. The frequency domain approach uses the mathematical description of a disk and modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise power spectrum (NPS) calculated from images. RESULTS For both systems most of the SNR values calculated in the frequency domain were in very good agreement with the SNR values calculated in the spatial domain. Both the formulations in the frequency domain and in the spatial domain show a linear relationship between SNR and the diameter of the CDMAM discs. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that both formulations of the model observer lead to very similar figures of merit. This is a step forward in the adoption of figures of merit based on NPS and MTF for the acceptance testing of mammography systems.

[1]  N W Marshall,et al.  A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Mass detection on mammograms: influence of signal shape uncertainty on human and model observers. , 2009, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[3]  M. Williams,et al.  Noise power spectra of images from digital mammography detectors. , 1999, Medical physics.

[4]  G Belli,et al.  Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography. , 2007, Medical physics.

[5]  Arthur E Burgess,et al.  Signal detection in power-law noise: effect of spectrum exponents. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[6]  M L Giger,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 3. Effect of pixel size on SNR and threshold contrast. , 1985, Medical physics.

[7]  K Doi,et al.  A comparison of physical image quality indices and observer performance in the radiographic detection of nylon beads. , 1984, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography. , 2012, Medical physics.

[9]  I A Cunningham,et al.  Signal and noise in modulation transfer function determinations using the slit, wire, and edge techniques. , 1992, Medical physics.

[10]  R Bouwman,et al.  An alternative method for noise analysis using pixel variance as part of quality control procedures on digital mammography systems. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  N W Marshall,et al.  Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993 .

[13]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[14]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems , 1985, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography. , 2003, Medical physics.

[16]  KH Ng,et al.  Development of a randomised contrast detail digital phantom for observer detectability study , 2006, Biomedical imaging and intervention journal.

[17]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Figures of merit for detectors in digital radiography. I. Flat background and deterministic blurring. , 2004, Medical physics.

[18]  Richard Van Metter,et al.  Quantifying the performance of human and software CDMAM phantom image observers for the qualification of digital mammography systems , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[19]  Ian A. Cunningham,et al.  Penalty on the detective quantum efficiency from off-axis incident x rays , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[20]  F R Verdun,et al.  Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Jerry A. Thomas,et al.  Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology. , 2005, Medical physics.

[22]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments. , 2006, Medical physics.

[23]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[24]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector. , 2009, Medical physics.

[25]  Wolfgang Birkfellner,et al.  Factors for conversion between human and automatic read-outs of CDMAM images. , 2011, Medical physics.

[26]  Raffaella Rossi,et al.  Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors. , 2008, Medical physics.

[27]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Mass discrimination in mammography , 2003 .

[28]  D. DeLong,et al.  Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis. , 2007, Medical physics.

[29]  J M Boone,et al.  Comparison of x-ray cross sections for diagnostic and therapeutic medical physics. , 1996, Medical physics.

[30]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Effect of shift invariance and stationarity assumptions on simple detection tasks : Spatial and spatial frequency domains , 2001 .

[31]  F R Verdun,et al.  Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[32]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms. , 2006, Medical physics.

[33]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Analysis of Mammography Quality Control Results: Evidence for a Change in Test Frequency? , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[34]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[35]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: I. A practical approach based on statistical decision theory. , 1993, Physics in medicine and biology.

[36]  Renato Campanini,et al.  Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[37]  Ingrid Reiser,et al.  Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds. , 2006, Medical physics.

[38]  M B Williams,et al.  Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a developmental detector for digital mammography. , 1999, Medical Physics (Lancaster).

[39]  G. Gennaro,et al.  Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography? , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[40]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images. , 2002, Radiology.