Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems.

This paper presents detective quantum efficiency (DQE) data measured for a range of x-ray beam qualities for two full-field digital mammography (FFDM) systems: a caesium iodide (CsI) detector-based unit and a system designed around an amorphous selenium (a-Se) x-ray detector. Four beam qualities were studied for each system, covering mean energies from 17.8 keV to 23.4 keV for the CsI system and 17.8 keV to 24.7 keV for the a-Se unit. These were set using 2, 4, 6 and 7 cm polymethylmethacralate (PMMA) and typical tube voltage and target/filter combinations selected by the automatic exposure control (AEC) program used clinically on these systems. Normalized noise power spectra (NNPS) were calculated from flood images acquired at these beam qualities for a target detector air kerma of 100 microGy. Modulation transfer function (MTF) data were acquired at 28 kV and Mo/Mo target/filter setting. The DQE was then calculated from the MTF and NNPS results. For comparison, the quantum detective efficiency (QDE) and energy absorption efficiency (EAE) were calculated from tabulated narrow beam spectral data. With regard to detector response, some energy dependence was noted for pixel value plotted against air kerma at the detector. This amounted to a change in the gradient of the detector response of approximately 15% and 30% per keV for the CsI- and a-Se-based systems, respectively. For the DQE results, a reduction in DQE(0) of 22% was found for the CsI-based unit as beam quality changed from 25 kV Mo/Mo and 2 cm PMMA to 32 kV Rh/Rh and 7 cm PMMA. For the a-Se system, a change in beam quality from 25 kV Mo/Mo and 2 cm PMMA to 34 kV Mo/Rh and 7 cm PMMA led to a reduction in DQE(0) of 8%. Comparing measured data with simple calculations, a reduction in x-ray quantum detection efficiency of 27% was expected for the CsI-based system, while a reduction of 11% was predicted for the a-Se system.

[1]  H Bosmans,et al.  Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Theoretical and empirical characterization of the physical characteristics of a clinical digital mammography system , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

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

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

[6]  A E Burgess,et al.  The Rose model, revisited. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[7]  N J Hangiandreou,et al.  Effects of x-ray spectra on the DQE of a computed radiography system. , 2001, Medical physics.

[8]  F R Verdun,et al.  A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems. , 2007, Medical physics.

[9]  John M. Boone,et al.  X-Ray Production, Interaction, and Detection in Diagnostic Imaging , 2000 .

[10]  Serge Muller,et al.  Tools and methods for exposure control optimization in digital mammography in presence of texture , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[11]  R. K. Swank.  Absorption and noise in x‐ray phosphors , 1973 .

[12]  D. Rimkus,et al.  Quantum noise in detectors. , 1983, Medical physics.

[13]  Ying Chen,et al.  Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function. , 2006, Medical physics.

[14]  Ying Chen,et al.  Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. II. Noise power spectrum. , 2006, Medical physics.

[15]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial. , 2006, Medical physics.

[16]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. , 2003, Medical physics.

[17]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  A. Rose.  The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. , 1948, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[19]  Cornelis H. Slump,et al.  Automatic Determination Of Image Quality Parameters In Digital Radiographic Imaging Systems , 1989, Medical Imaging.

[20]  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.

[21]  D R Dance,et al.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[22]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. , 2006, Medical physics.

[23]  Alistair Mackenzie,et al.  Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors. , 2007, Medical physics.

[24]  Egbert Buhr,et al.  Measurement of correlated noise in images of computed radiography systems and its influence on the detective quantum efficiency , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[25]  N W Marshall,et al.  Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  Remy Klausz,et al.  Optimized exposure control in digital mammography , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[27]  E. Samei,et al.  A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. , 1998, Medical physics.

[28]  A Workman,et al.  A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. , 2006, Medical physics.