Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography

The performance of an automatic software package was evaluated with phantom images acquired by a full-field digital mammography unit. After the validation, the software was used, together with a Leeds TORMAS test object, to model the image acquisition process. Process modelling results were used to evaluate the sensitivity of the method in detecting changes of exposure parameters from routine image quality measurements in digital mammography, which is the ultimate purpose of long-term reproducibility tests. Image quality indices measured by the software included the mean pixel value and standard deviation of circular details and surrounding background, contrast-to-noise ratio and relative contrast; detail counts were also collected. The validation procedure demonstrated that the software localizes the phantom details correctly and the difference between automatic and manual measurements was within few grey levels. Quantitative analysis showed sufficient sensitivity to relate fluctuations in exposure parameters (kV(p) or mAs) to variations in image quality indices. In comparison, detail counts were found less sensitive in detecting image quality changes, even when limitations due to observer subjectivity were overcome by automatic analysis. In conclusion, long-term reproducibility tests provided by the Leeds TORMAS phantom with quantitative analysis of multiple IQ indices have been demonstrated to be effective in predicting causes of deviation from standard operating conditions and can be used to monitor stability in full-field digital mammography.

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

[2]  D. Chakraborty,et al.  Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images. , 1997, Medical physics.

[3]  D R Dance,et al.  Objective assessment of phantom image quality in mammography: a feasibility study. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  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.

[5]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  M P Eckert,et al.  Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images. , 1995, Medical physics.

[7]  G. Gennaro,et al.  Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography? , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Walter Huda,et al.  How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography? , 2002, Academic radiology.

[9]  Francis R Verdun,et al.  A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  Euclid Seeram,et al.  Digital Mammography: An Overview , 2005 .

[11]  K J Kearfott,et al.  Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images. , 1997, Medical Physics (Lancaster).

[12]  C P Lawinski,et al.  Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images—comparison with subjective visual assessment , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  L. Bassett,et al.  A review of mammography test objects for the calibration of resolution, contrast, and exposure. , 1989, Medical physics.

[14]  E. Pisano,et al.  Factors affecting phantom scores at annual mammography facility inspections by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[15]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

[16]  A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms. , 2000, Clinical radiology.

[17]  Guy Marchal,et al.  First validation of a new phantom for global quality control in digital mammography , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[18]  Walter Huda,et al.  Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. , 2003, Medical physics.

[19]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[20]  Gumersindo Verdú Martín,et al.  Automatic evaluation of the image quality of a mammographic phantom , 2004, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[21]  Mahadevappa Mahesh,et al.  AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[22]  F. Thibault,et al.  Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges , 2004, European Radiology.

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

[24]  C Kimme-Smith,et al.  Establishing minimum performance standards, calibration intervals, and optimal exposure values for a whole breast digital mammography unit. , 1998, Medical physics.