Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector.

The purpose of this study was to measure experimentally the physical performance of a prototype mammographic imager based on a direct detection, flat-panel array design employing an amorphous selenium converter with 70 microm pixels. The system was characterized for two different anode types, a molybdenum target with molybdenum filtration (Mo/Mo) and a tungsten target with rhodium filtration (W/Rh), at two different energies, 28 and 35 kVp, with approximately 2 mm added aluminum filtration. To measure the resolution, the presampled modulation transfer function (MTF) was measured using an edge method. The normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) was measured by two-dimensional Fourier analysis of uniformly exposed mammograms. The detective quantum efficiencies (DQEs) were computed from the MTFs, the NNPSs, and theoretical ideal signal to noise ratios. The MTF was found to be close to its ideal limit and reached 0.2 at 11.8 mm(-1) and 0.1 at 14.1 mm(-1) for images acquired at an RQA-M2 technique (Mo/Mo anode, 28 kVp, 2 mm Al). Using a tungsten technique (MW2; W/Rh anode, 28 kVp, 2 mm Al), the MTF went to 0.2 at 11.2 mm(-1) and to 0.1 at 13.3 mm(-1). The DQE reached a maximum value of 54% at 1.35 mm(-1) for the RQA-M2 technique at 1.6 microC/kg and achieved a peak value of 64% at 1.75 mm(-1) for the tungsten technique (MW2) at 1.9 microC/kg. Nevertheless, the DQE showed strong exposure and frequency dependencies. The results indicated that the detector offered high MTFs and DQEs, but structured noise effects may require improved calibration before clinical implementation.

[1]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Simulation study of a quasi-monochromatic beam for x-ray computed mammotomography. , 2004, Medical physics.

[2]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector. , 2003, Medical physics.

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

[4]  S. Rubin,et al.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. , 1995, JAMA.

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

[6]  M. Giger,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 2. Noise Wiener spectrum. , 1984, Medical physics.

[7]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  DQE of direct and indirect digital radiography systems , 2001 .

[8]  E. Samei,et al.  Experimental comparison of noise and resolution for 2k and 4k storage phosphor radiography systems. , 1999, Medical physics.

[9]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. , 2003, Medical physics.

[10]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems. , 2002, Medical physics.

[11]  M L Giger,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 6. MTFs of II-TV digital imaging systems. , 1985, Medical physics.

[12]  R. Bird,et al.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[13]  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.

[14]  Larry E. Antonuk,et al.  Evaluation of direct detection and indirect detection active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for digital mammography , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[15]  I. Blevis,et al.  Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: construction and evaluation of a prototype real-time detector. , 1997, Medical physics.

[16]  Yi Wang,et al.  Evaluation of novel direct- and indirect-detection active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for mammography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[17]  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.

[18]  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.

[19]  J Yorkston,et al.  Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology. , 1998, Medical physics.

[20]  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.

[21]  I. Jatoi Breast cancer screening 1 , 1999 .

[22]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Analysis of the spatial-frequency-dependent DQE of optically coupled digital mammography detectors. , 1994, Medical physics.

[23]  James T Dobbins,et al.  Quantitative , 2020, Psychology through Critical Auto-Ethnography.

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

[25]  A Workman,et al.  Physical performance measures of radiographic imaging systems. , 1997, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[26]  Ellery Storm,et al.  Calculated Bremsstrahlung Spectra from Thick Tungsten Targets , 1972 .

[27]  Qihua Zhao,et al.  System performance of a prototype flat-panel imager operated under mammographic conditions. , 2003, Medical physics.

[28]  P. Granfors,et al.  Performance of a 41X41-cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications. , 2000, Medical physics.

[29]  Martin J. Yaffe,et al.  Scanned-slot digital mammography , 1990, Medical Imaging.

[30]  B. Archer,et al.  On the measurement of half-value layer in film-screen mammography. , 1990, Medical physics.

[31]  W W Peppler,et al.  Use of a slit camera for MTF measurements. , 1999, Medical physics.

[32]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images. , 2003, Medical physics.

[33]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray detectors for digital radiography. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[35]  Brian G. Rodricks,et al.  Improved imaging performance of a 14"x17" direct radiography system using a Se/TFT detector , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[36]  Ehsan Samei Image quality in two phosphor-based flat panel digital radiographic detectors. , 2003, Medical physics.

[37]  R Fahrig,et al.  Optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography: dependence on anode material, breast thickness, and lesion type. , 1994, Medical physics.

[38]  M. Williams,et al.  Noise power spectra of images from digital mammography detectors. , 1999, Medical physics.

[39]  B Geiger,et al.  Digital radiography with a large-area, amorphous-silicon, flat-panel X-ray detector system. , 2000, Investigative radiology.