A comparison of mammographic systems for different breast thicknesses using model observer detectability

This work investigated image quality as a function of PMMA thickness on a variety of mammography systems. Image quality was quantified by calculating detectability (d’) using a non-prewhitening with eye filter model observer (NPWE) from routinely acquired quality control (QC) data of twelve digital radiography (DR) systems. The sample of systems included two mammography devices equipped with the Siemens PRIME upgrade and one system with the Claymount SmartBucky detector. The d’ data were calculated for a 0.1 and 0.25 mm diameter gold discs using images of homogeneous PMMA (thickness from 2 to 7 cm), all from the routinely performed AEC test. The GE Essential systems had the highest d’ values for low thicknesses and the lowest d’ values for high thicknesses. The Hologic Selenia Dimension systems had the most constant detectability curve, ensuring high d’ values at high thicknesses. This was achieved by increasing the mean glandular dose (MGD) at higher thicknesses compared to the other systems. The Siemens PRIME and the Claymount system detectability results were comparable to the standard FFDM systems. Mean glandular dose at 5, 6 and 7 cm PMMA and gold threshold thickness at 5 cm PMMA were also evaluated. The Claymount system had a high (but acceptable) threshold gold thickness (T) compared to the other systems. This was probably caused by the low dose at which this DR detector operates. Results of NPWE d’ and CDMAM analysis showed the same trends.

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

[3]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Effective detective quantum efficiency for two mammography systems: measurement and comparison against established metrics. , 2013, Medical physics.

[4]  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.

[5]  D. H. Kelly Motion and vision. II. Stabilized spatio-temporal threshold surface. , 1979, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[6]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography. , 1979, Medical physics.

[7]  Andreas Fieselmann,et al.  Full-field digital mammography with grid-less acquisition and software-based scatter correction: investigation of dose saving and image quality , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[8]  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.

[9]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Model observer detectability as a substitute for contrast detail analysis in routine digital mammography quality control , 2013, Medical Imaging.