Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.

PURPOSE The automatic exposure control (AEC) modes of most full field digital mammography (FFDM) systems are set up to hold pixel value (PV) constant as breast thickness changes. This paper proposes an alternative AEC mode, set up to maintain some minimum detectability level, with the ultimate goal of improving object detectability at larger breast thicknesses. METHODS The default "opdose" AEC mode of a Siemens MAMMOMAT Inspiration FFDM system was assessed using poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) of thickness 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 mm to find the tube voltage and anode/filter combination programmed for each thickness; these beam quality settings were used for the modified AEC mode. Detectability index (d'), in terms of a non-prewhitened model observer with eye filter, was then calculated as a function of tube current-time product (mAs) for each thickness. A modified AEC could then be designed in which detectability never fell below some minimum setting for any thickness in the operating range. In this study, the value was chosen such that the system met the achievable threshold gold thickness (Tt) in the European guidelines for the 0.1 mm diameter disc (i.e., Tt ≤ 1.10 μm gold). The default and modified AEC modes were compared in terms of contrast-detail performance (Tt), calculated detectability (d'), signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), and mean glandular dose (MGD). The influence of a structured background on object detectability for both AEC modes was examined using a CIRS BR3D phantom. Computer-based CDMAM reading was used for the homogeneous case, while the images with the BR3D background were scored by human observers. RESULTS The default opdose AEC mode maintained PV constant as PMMA thickness increased, leading to a reduction in SDNR for the homogeneous background 39% and d' 37% in going from 20 to 70 mm; introduction of the structured BR3D plate changed these figures to 22% (SDNR) and 6% (d'), respectively. Threshold gold thickness (0.1 mm diameter disc) for the default AEC mode in the homogeneous background increased by 62% in going from 20 to 70 mm PMMA thickness; in the structured background, the increase was 39%. Implementation of the modified mode entailed an increase in mAs at PMMA thicknesses >40 mm; the modified AEC held threshold gold thickness constant above 40 mm PMMA with a maximum deviation of 5% in the homogeneous background and 3% in structured background. SDNR was also held constant with a maximum deviation of 4% and 2% for the homogeneous and the structured background, respectively. These results were obtained with an increase of MGD between 15% and 73% going from 40 to 70 mm PMMA thickness. CONCLUSIONS This work has proposed and implemented a modified AEC mode, tailored toward constant detectability at larger breast thickness, i.e., above 40 mm PMMA equivalent. The desired improvement in object detectability could be obtained while maintaining MGD within the European guidelines achievable dose limit. (A study designed to verify the performance of the modified mode using more clinically realistic data is currently underway.).

[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]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography. , 2008, Medical physics.

[3]  D R Dance,et al.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  A novel platform to simplify human observer performance experiments in clinical reading environments , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[5]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography. , 2012, Medical physics.

[6]  R Klausz,et al.  Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  P. Baldelli,et al.  A novel method for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation of digital mammography detectors , 2009, European Radiology.

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

[11]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. , 2006, Medical physics.

[12]  C J Martin,et al.  Application of contrast-to-noise ratio in optimizing beam quality for digital chest radiography: comparison of experimental measurements and theoretical simulations , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  M J Yaffe,et al.  The myth of the 50-50 breast. , 2009, Medical physics.

[14]  John Yorkston,et al.  Configuration of AEC kVp dependence for digital radiography systems , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

[16]  H. Chan,et al.  Phototimer setup for CR imaging. , 2000, Medical physics.

[17]  D. Jaffray,et al.  A framework for noise-power spectrum analysis of multidimensional images. , 2002, Medical physics.

[18]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  The effect of background structure on the detection of low contrast objects in mammography. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[19]  A. Burgess.  Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[20]  Walter Huda,et al.  How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography? , 2006, Academic radiology.

[21]  P Baldelli,et al.  Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. , 2010, The British journal of radiology.

[22]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems , 1985, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  D. Rimkus,et al.  Quantum noise in detectors. , 1983, Medical physics.

[24]  James G. Mainprize,et al.  Towards a Quantitative Measure of Radiographic Masking by Dense Tissue in Mammography , 2014, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[25]  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.

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

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

[28]  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.

[29]  Alistair Mackenzie.  Validation of correction methods for the non-linear response of digital radiography systems. , 2008, The British journal of radiology.

[30]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Generalized DQE analysis of radiographic and dual-energy imaging using flat-panel detectors. , 2005, Medical physics.

[31]  N W Marshall.  An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[32]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system , 2006, European Radiology.

[33]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Effective detective quantum efficiency (eDQE) and effective noise equivalent quanta (eNEQ) for system optimization purposes in digital mammography , 2012, Medical Imaging.

[34]  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.