Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems

In many European countries, image quality for digital x-ray systems used in screening mammography is currently specified using a threshold-detail detectability method. This is a two-part study that proposes an alternative method based on calculated detectability for a model observer: the first part of the work presents a characterization of the systems. Eleven digital mammography systems were included in the study; four computed radiography (CR) systems, and a group of seven digital radiography (DR) detectors, composed of three amorphous selenium-based detectors, three caesium iodide scintillator systems and a silicon wafer-based photon counting system. The technical parameters assessed included the system response curve, detector uniformity error, pre-sampling modulation transfer function (MTF), normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE). Approximate quantum noise limited exposure range was examined using a separation of noise sources based upon standard deviation. Noise separation showed that electronic noise was the dominant noise at low detector air kerma for three systems; the remaining systems showed quantum noise limited behaviour between 12.5 and 380 µGy. Greater variation in detector MTF was found for the DR group compared to the CR systems; MTF at 5 mm(-1) varied from 0.08 to 0.23 for the CR detectors against a range of 0.16-0.64 for the DR units. The needle CR detector had a higher MTF, lower NNPS and higher DQE at 5 mm(-1) than the powder CR phosphors. DQE at 5 mm(-1) ranged from 0.02 to 0.20 for the CR systems, while DQE at 5 mm(-1) for the DR group ranged from 0.04 to 0.41, indicating higher DQE for the DR detectors and needle CR system than for the powder CR phosphor systems. The technical evaluation section of the study showed that the digital mammography systems were well set up and exhibiting typical performance for the detector technology employed in the respective systems.

[1]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Effect of various noise sources on the detective quantum efficiency of phosphor screens. , 1990, Medical physics.

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

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

[4]  J A Rowlands,et al.  Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: theoretical analysis of detective quantum efficiency. , 1997, Medical physics.

[5]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Model of the spatial-frequency-dependent detective quantum efficiency of phosphor screens. , 1990, Medical physics.

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

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

[8]  A. Nitrosi,et al.  On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. , 2003, Medical physics.

[9]  Björn Cederström,et al.  Physical characterization of a scanning photon counting digital mammography system based on Si-strip detectors. , 2007, Medical physics.

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

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

[12]  J. C. Dainty,et al.  Image Science: Principles, Analysis and Evaluation of Photographic-Type Imaging Processes , 1974 .

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

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

[15]  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.

[16]  Arthur Burgess.  On the noise variance of a digital mammography system. , 2004, Medical physics.

[17]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[18]  Nadia Oberhofer,et al.  Comparison of Two Novel FFDM Systems with Different a-Se Detector Technology: Physical Characterization and Phantom Contrast Detail Evaluation in Clinical Conditions , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

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

[20]  C Schmidgunst,et al.  Calibration model of a dual gain flat panel detector for 2D and 3D x-ray imaging. , 2007, Medical physics.

[21]  G T Barnes,et al.  Radiographic mottle: a comprehensive theory. , 1982, Medical physics.

[22]  A R Cowen,et al.  Physical imaging performance of a compact computed radiography acquisition device. , 1998, Medical physics.

[23]  P. Vock,et al.  An image quality comparison of standard and dual-side read CR systems for pediatric radiology. , 2006, Medical physics.

[24]  C J Kotre,et al.  Receptor dose in digital fluorography: a comparison between theory and practice. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  Dirk A. N. Vandenbroucke,et al.  CR Mammography: Image Quality Measurement and Model Calculation for Needle vs. Powder Imaging Plate , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

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

[27]  Nico Lanconelli,et al.  Physical and psychophysical characterization of a novel clinical system for digital mammography. , 2009, Medical physics.

[28]  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.

[29]  Kunio Doi,et al.  A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital radiography , 1992, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[30]  Kenneth A Fetterly,et al.  Performance evaluation of a "dual-side read" dedicated mammography computed radiography system. , 2003, Medical physics.

[31]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. , 2000, Medical physics.

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

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

[34]  T. R. Fewell,et al.  Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. , 1997, Medical physics.

[35]  Fulwood House,et al.  Calculation Of Quantitative Image Quality Parameters , 2009 .

[36]  Bo Zhao.  Breast tomosynthesis with amorphous selenium digital flat panel detector , 2007 .

[37]  N W Marshall.  Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[38]  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.