Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.

PURPOSE The scan equalization digital mammography (SEDM) technique combines slot scanning and exposure equalization to improve low-contrast performance of digital mammography in dense tissue areas. In this study, full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom acquired with an anti-scatter grid at various exposure levels were superimposed to simulate SEDM images and investigate the improvement of low-contrast performance as quantified by primary signal-to-noise ratios (PSNRs). METHODS We imaged an anthropomorphic breast phantom (Gammex 169 "Rachel," Gammex RMI, Middleton, WI) at various exposure levels using a FFDM system (Senographe 2000D, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI). The exposure equalization factors were computed based on a standard FFDM image acquired in the automatic exposure control (AEC) mode. The equalized image was simulated and constructed by superimposing a selected set of FFDM images acquired at 2, 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, and 1/32 times of exposure levels to the standard AEC timed technique (125 mAs) using the equalization factors computed for each region. Finally, the equalized image was renormalized regionally with the exposure equalization factors to result in an appearance similar to that with standard digital mammography. Two sets of FFDM images were acquired to allow for two identically, but independently, formed equalized images to be subtracted from each other to estimate the noise levels. Similarly, two identically but independently acquired standard FFDM images were subtracted to estimate the noise levels. Corrections were applied to remove the excess system noise accumulated during image superimposition in forming the equalized image. PSNRs over the compressed area of breast phantom were computed and used to quantitatively study the effects of exposure equalization on low-contrast performance in digital mammography. RESULTS We found that the highest achievable PSNR improvement factor was 1.89 for the anthropomorphic breast phantom used in this study. The overall PSNRs were measured to be 79.6 for the FFDM imaging and 107.6 for the simulated SEDM imaging on average in the compressed area of breast phantom, resulting in an average improvement of PSNR by ∼35% with exposure equalization. We also found that the PSNRs appeared to be largely uniform with exposure equalization, and the standard deviations of PSNRs were estimated to be 10.3 and 7.9 for the FFDM imaging and the simulated SEDM imaging, respectively. The average glandular dose for SEDM was estimated to be 212.5 mrad, ∼34% lower than that of standard AEC-timed FFDM (323.8 mrad) as a result of exposure equalization for the entire breast phantom. CONCLUSIONS Exposure equalization was found to substantially improve image PSNRs in dense tissue regions and result in more uniform image PSNRs. This improvement may lead to better low-contrast performance in detecting and visualizing soft tissue masses and micro-calcifications in dense tissue areas for breast imaging tasks.

[1]  Douglas Albagli,et al.  Performance of optimized amorphous silicon, cesium-iodide based large field-of-view detector for mammography , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  D B Plewes,et al.  Rotary scanning equalization radiography: an efficient geometry for equalization mammography. , 1994, Medical physics.

[3]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Hong Liu,et al.  CCD mosaic technique for large-field digital mammography , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[5]  D B Plewes,et al.  Observer performance and dose efficiency of mammographic scanning equalization radiography. , 1993, Medical physics.

[6]  D B Plewes,et al.  Mammographic scanning equalization radiography. , 1993, Medical physics.

[7]  Hiroaki Yasuda,et al.  Improvement of image quality in CR mammography by detection of emissions from dual sides of an imaging plate , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[8]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector. , 2009, Medical physics.

[9]  H P Chan,et al.  Exposure equalization technique in mammography. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[10]  Lingyun Chen,et al.  Comparison of slot scanning digital mammography system with full-field digital mammography system. , 2008, Medical physics.

[11]  D B Plewes,et al.  A method for practical equalization mammography of the radiographically dense breast. , 1995, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[12]  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.

[13]  Idris Elbakri,et al.  Effect of scatter and an antiscatter grid on the performance of a slot-scanning digital mammography system. , 2006, Medical physics.

[14]  Xinming Liu,et al.  An alternate line erasure and readout (ALER) method for implementing slot-scan imaging technique with a flat-panel detector-initial experiences , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  J W Oestmann,et al.  Scanning equalization mammography: preliminary evaluation. , 1994, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

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

[17]  R Fahrig,et al.  Dynamic range requirements in digital mammography. , 1993, Medical physics.

[18]  Gary R Cutter,et al.  Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. , 2003, Medical physics.

[19]  A Fenster,et al.  Scanned-projection digital mammography. , 1987, Medical physics.

[20]  D B Plewes,et al.  Practical application of a scan-rotate equalization geometry to mammography. , 1996, Medical physics.

[21]  N. Petrick,et al.  Classification of compressed breast shapes for the design of equalization filters in x-ray mammography. , 1998, Medical physics.

[22]  H P Chan,et al.  Design and evaluation of an external filter technique for exposure equalization in mammography. , 1999, Medical physics.

[23]  C E Ravin,et al.  Quality control phantom for digital chest radiography. , 1997, Radiology.

[24]  C. Shaw,et al.  Comparison of scatter rejection and low-contrast performance of scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR), slot-scan digital radiography, and full-field digital radiography systems for chest phantom imaging. , 2010, Medical physics.

[25]  E. Pisano,et al.  Current status of full-field digital mammography. , 2000, Radiology.

[26]  B. Geller,et al.  A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. , 2004, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[27]  G. Barnes,et al.  Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. , 1991, Radiology.

[28]  Lingyun Chen,et al.  Scatter rejection and low-contrast performance of a slot-scan digital chest radiography system with electronic aft-collimation: a chest phantom study. , 2008, Medical physics.

[29]  L Costaridou,et al.  A phantom-based evaluation of an exposure equalization technique in mammography. , 1999, The British journal of radiology.

[30]  Sabee Molloi,et al.  Effect of area x-ray beam equalization on image quality and dose in digital mammography. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[31]  S Muller,et al.  Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system. , 1999, European journal of radiology.

[32]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. , 2002, Medical physics.

[33]  Thomas Oshiro,et al.  Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems. , 2003, Medical physics.

[34]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Mammographic imaging with a small format CCD-based digital cassette: physical characteristics of a clinical system. , 2000, Medical physics.

[35]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  New design of a structured CsI(Tl) screen for digital mammography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[36]  G Panayiotakis,et al.  An anatomical filter for exposure equalization in mammography. , 1992, European journal of radiology.

[37]  D B Plewes,et al.  Analytical description of the high and low contrast behavior of a scan-rotate geometry for equalization mammography. , 1996, Medical physics.

[38]  L Costaridou,et al.  Evaluation of an anatomical filter-based exposure equalization technique in mammography. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[39]  K L Lam,et al.  Effects of x-ray beam equalization on mammographic imaging. , 1990, Medical physics.

[40]  Douglas Albagli,et al.  Enhanced a-Si/CsI-based flat-panel x-ray detector for mammography , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[41]  Andreas Koch,et al.  Design and evaluation of a slot-scanning full-field digital mammography system , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[42]  R. Cope The Shoulder: Surgical and Nonsurgical Management. 2d ed , 1988 .

[43]  Björn Cederström,et al.  AEC for scanning digital mammography based on variation of scan velocity. , 2005, Medical physics.

[44]  C. Shaw,et al.  Scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR) implemented with an amorphous selenium flat-panel detector: initial experience. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[45]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[46]  Douglas Albagli,et al.  Performance of advanced a-Si/CsI-based flat-panel x-ray detectors for mammography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.