Physical and psychophysical characterization of a novel clinical system for digital mammography.

PURPOSE In recent years, many approaches have been investigated on the development of full-field digital mammography detectors and implemented in practical clinical systems. Some of the most promising techniques are based on flat panel detectors, which, depending on the mechanism involved in the x-ray detection, can be grouped into direct and indirect flat panels. Direct detectors display a better spatial resolution due to the direct conversion of x rays into electron-hole pairs, which do not need an intermediate production of visible light. In these detectors the readout is usually achieved through arrays of thin film transistors (TFTs). However, TFT readout tends to display noise characteristics worse than those from indirect detectors. To address this problem, a novel clinical system for digital mammography has been recently marketed based on direct-conversion detector and optical readout. This unit, named AMULET and manufactured by FUJIFILM, is based on a dual layer of amorphous selenium that acts both as a converter of x rays (first layer) and as an optical switch for the readout of signals (second layer) powered by a line light source. The optical readout is expected to improve the noise characteristics of the detector. The aim is to obtain images with high resolution and low noise, thanks to the combination of optical switching technology and direct conversion with amorphous selenium. In this article, the authors present a characterization of an AMULET system. METHODS The characterization was achieved in terms of physical figures as modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectra (NPS), detective quantum efficiency (DQE), and contrast-detail analysis. The clinical unit was tested by exposing it to two different beams: 28 kV Mo/Mo (namely, RQA-M2) and 28 kV W/Rh (namely, W/Rh). RESULTS MTF values of the system are slightly worse than those recorded from other direct-conversion flat panels but still within the range of those from indirect flat panels: The MTF values of the AMULET system are about 45% and 15% at 5 and 8 lp/mm, respectively. On the other hand, however, AMULET NNPS results are consistently better than those from direct-conversion flat panels (up to two to three times lower) and flat panels based on scintillation phosphors. DQE results lie around 70% when RQA-M2 beams are used and approaches 80% in the case of W/Rh beams. Contrast-detail analysis, when performed by human observers on the AMULET system, results in values better than those published for other full-field digital mammography systems. CONCLUSIONS The novel clinical unit based on direct-conversion detector and optical reading presents great results in terms of both physical and psychophysical characterizations. The good spatial resolution, combined with excellent noise properties, allows the achievement of very good DQE, better than those published for clinical FFDM systems. The psychophysical analysis confirms the excellent behavior of the AMULET unit.

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

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

[4]  I A Cunningham,et al.  Fundamental x-ray interaction limits in diagnostic imaging detectors: Frequency-dependent Swank noise. , 2008, Medical physics.

[5]  Qihua Zhao,et al.  System performance of a prototype flat-panel imager operated under mammographic conditions. , 2003, Medical physics.

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

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

[8]  M. Ogawa,et al.  Direct-conversion 50 μm pixel-pitch detector for digital mammography using amorphous selenium as a photoconductive switching layer for signal charge readout , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[9]  Gillian Egan,et al.  Effect of Anode/Filter Combination on the Dose and Image Quality of a Digital Mammography System Based on an Amorphous Selenium Detector , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[10]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: a photoinduced discharge readout method for digital mammography. , 1991, Medical physics.

[11]  R. Righetto,et al.  Comparison between a built-in "dual side" chest imaging device and a standard "single side" CR. , 2006, Medical physics.

[12]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. , 2005, Medical physics.

[13]  John A Rowlands,et al.  Digital radiography using amorphous selenium: photoconductively activated switch (PAS) readout system. , 2008, Medical physics.

[14]  J A Rowlands,et al.  Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: geometrical and effective fill factors. , 1998, Medical physics.

[15]  Nico Lanconelli,et al.  Comparison of human observers and CDCOM software reading for CDMAM images , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

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

[18]  J A Rowlands,et al.  Design of a laser scanner for a digital mammography system. , 1996, Medical physics.

[19]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Effect of Using Tungsten-Anode X-Ray Tubes on Dose and Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[20]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. , 2007, Medical physics.

[21]  J. Rowlands,et al.  The physics of computed radiography. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  Nico Lanconelli,et al.  Physical and psychophysical characterization of a GE senographe DS clinical system , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.