Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system.

In breast tomosynthesis a rapid sequence of N images is acquired when the x-ray tube sweeps through different angular views with respect to the breast. Since the total dose to the breast is kept the same as that in regular mammography, the exposure used for each image of tomosynthesis is 1/N. The low dose and high frame rate pose a tremendous challenge to the imaging performance of digital mammography detectors. The purpose of the present work is to investigate the detector performance in different operational modes designed for tomosynthesis acquisition, e.g., binning or full resolution readout, the range of view angles, and the number of views N. A prototype breast tomosynthesis system with a nominal angular range of +/-25 degrees was used in our investigation. The system was equipped with an amorphous selenium (a-Se) full field digital mammography detector with pixel size of 85 microm. The detector can be read out in full resolution or 2 x 1 binning (binning in the tube travel direction). The focal spot blur due to continuous tube travel was measured for different acquisition geometries, and it was found that pixel binning, instead of focal spot blur, dominates the detector modulation transfer function (MTF). The noise power spectrum (NPS) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of the detector were measured with the exposure range of 0.4-6 mR, which is relevant to the low dose used in tomosynthesis. It was found that DQE at 0.4 mR is only 20% less than that at highest exposure for both detector readout modes. The detector temporal performance was categorized as lag and ghosting, both of which were measured as a function of x-ray exposure. The first frame lags were 8% and 4%, respectively, for binning and full resolution mode. Ghosting is negligible and independent of the frame rate. The results showed that the detector performance is x-ray quantum noise limited at the low exposures used in each view of tomosynthesis, and the temporal performance at high frame rate (up to 2 frames per second) is adequate for tomosynthesis.

[1]  Elizabeth A Rafferty,et al.  Digital mammography: novel applications. , 2007, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[2]  Bo Zhao,et al.  A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. , 2007, Medical physics.

[3]  I A Cunningham,et al.  Signal and noise transfer properties of photoelectric interactions in diagnostic x-ray imaging detectors. , 2006, Medical physics.

[4]  Michael P. Kempston,et al.  Resolution at oblique incidence angles of a flat panel imager for breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[5]  D. Kopans,et al.  Voting strategy for artifact reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[6]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

[8]  Andrew Smith,et al.  Full-field breast tomosynthesis. , 2005, Radiology management.

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

[10]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Detector evaluation of a prototype amorphous selenium-based full field digital mammography system , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[11]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Optimization of operational conditions for direct digital mammography detectors for digital tomosynthesis , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[12]  Ian Shaw,et al.  Design and performance of the prototype full field breast tomosynthesis system with selenium based flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[14]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Impulse response analysis for several digital tomosynthesis mammography reconstruction algorithms , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[15]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Ghosting caused by bulk charge trapping in direct conversion flat-panel detectors using amorphous selenium. , 2005, Medical physics.

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

[17]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Temporal performance of amorphous selenium mammography detectors. , 2005, Medical physics.

[18]  Tao Wu,et al.  A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. , 2004, Medical physics.

[19]  James T Dobbins,et al.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  Michael J. Flynn,et al.  Optimal radiographic techniques for digital mammograms obtained with an amorphous selenium detector , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[21]  Bo Zhao,et al.  Characterization of a direct full-field flat-panel digital mammography detector , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[22]  Barbara Lazzari,et al.  Physical characteristics of a clinical prototype for full-field digital mamography with an a-Se flat-panel detector , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[23]  Vincent Loustauneau,et al.  Imaging performance of a clinical selenium flat-panel detector for advanced applications in full-field digital mammography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

[25]  John A. Rowlands,et al.  Investigation of lag and ghosting in amorphous selenium flat-panel x-ray detectors , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

[27]  Richard L. Weisfield,et al.  Electronic noise analysis of a 127-um pixel TFT/photodiode array , 2001 .

[28]  C J D'Orsi,et al.  Evaluation of linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods in digital mammography. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[29]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: effects of image lag. , 1999, Medical physics.

[30]  D. Jaffray,et al.  A ghost story: spatio-temporal response characteristics of an indirect-detection flat-panel imager. , 1999, Medical physics.

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

[32]  John M. Boone.  Spectral modeling and compilation of quantum fluence in radiography and mammography , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[33]  E. Samei,et al.  A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. , 1998, 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]  J A Rowlands,et al.  Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: theoretical analysis of detective quantum efficiency. , 1997, Medical physics.

[36]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[37]  H. Blume,et al.  DQE(f) of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices. , 1995, Medical physics.

[38]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: inherent spatial resolution. , 1995, Medical physics.

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