Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system

This paper describes objective and subjective image quality measurements acquired as part of a routine quality assurance (QA) programme for an amorphous selenium (a-Se) full field digital mammography (FFDM) system between August-04 and February-05. During this period, the FFDM detector developed a fault and was replaced. A retrospective analysis of objective image quality parameters (modulation transfer function (MTF), normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE)) is presented to try and gain a deeper understanding of the detector problem that occurred. These measurements are discussed in conjunction with routine contrast-detail (c-d) results acquired with the CDMAM (Artinis, The Netherlands) test object. There was significant reduction in MTF over this period of time indicating an increase in blurring occurring within the a-Se converter layer. This blurring was not isotropic, being greater in the data line direction (left to right across the detector) than in the gate line direction (chest wall to nipple). The initial value of the 50% MTF point was 6 mm(-1); for the faulty detector the 50% MTF points occurred at 3.4 mm(-1) and 1.0 mm(-1) in the gate line and data line directions, respectively. Prior to NNPS estimation, variance images were formed of the detector flat field images. Spatial distribution of variance was not uniform, suggesting that the physical blurring process was not constant across the detector. This change in variance with image position implied that the stationarity of the noise statistics within the image was limited and that care would be needed when performing objective measurements. The NNPS measurements confirmed the results found for the MTF, with a strong reduction in NNPS as a function of spatial frequency. This reduction was far more severe in the data line direction. A somewhat tentative DQE estimate was made; in the gate line direction there was little change in DQE up to 2.5 mm(-1) but at the Nyquist frequency the DQE had fallen to approximately 35% of the original value. There was severe attenuation of DQE in the data line direction, the DQE falling to less than 0.01 above approximately 3.0 mm(-1). C-d results showed an increase in threshold contrast of approximately 25% for details less than 0.2 mm in diameter, while no reduction in c-d performance was found at the largest detail diameters (1.0 mm and above). Despite the detector fault, the c-d curve was found to pass the European protocol acceptable c-d curve.

[1]  L. Wagner,et al.  Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments. , 1984, Medical physics.

[2]  A set of X-ray test objects for quality control in television fluoroscopy. , 1985, The British journal of radiology.

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

[4]  Arnold R. Cowen,et al.  Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography , 1993 .

[5]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems. , 1995, Medical physics.

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

[7]  K Stierstorfer,et al.  Self-normalizing method to measure the detective quantum efficiency of a wide range of x-ray detectors. , 1999, Medical physics.

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

[9]  R. Aufrichtig,et al.  Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. , 1999, Medical physics.

[10]  H. Chan,et al.  Phototimer setup for CR imaging. , 2000, Medical physics.

[11]  I. Cunningham Applied Linear-Systems Theory , 2000 .

[12]  James T. Dobbins Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems , 2000 .

[13]  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.

[14]  Zhenxue Jing,et al.  Characterization of a full-field digital mammography detector based on direct x-ray conversion in selenium , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[15]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Conditioning data for calculation of the modulation transfer function. , 2003, Medical physics.

[16]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Standardization of NPS measurement: interim report of AAPM TG16 , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[17]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector. , 2003, Medical physics.

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

[19]  Christoph Hoeschen,et al.  Measurement of the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of digital x-ray imaging devices according to the standard IEC 62220-1 , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[20]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control. , 2005, Medical physics.

[21]  Ruben E. van Engen,et al.  Using a Homogeneity Test as Weekly Quality Control on Digital Mammography Units , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[22]  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.

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