Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mammographic system performance using an image reading qualification method

  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our goal was to evaluate mammography systems based on microcalcifications and fiber detection using a statistical phantom (ALVIM, model TRM 18-209, Nuclear Associates) image readings. ALVIM phantom images were acquired under diverse exposure conditions with various equipments, and 5 radiologists with similar expertise reported their findings. The reading performance in the detection of microcalcifications and fibers of different sizes was measured by simulation of equivalent breast tissue with 4.5 and 6.5 cm thicknesses. We determined kappa values, ROC curves, and kappa probability density and detection rates with dedicated software developed locally. The statistical results generated three kappa (K) ranges that allowed quantification of the detection performance at three quality levels: unacceptable (K ≤ 0.64), achievable (K ≥ 0.70) and acceptable (0.64 < K < 0.70). An extensive database permitted a comparison of the reading performance with 99.5 % reliability (p < 0.005). The comparison showed a larger dispersion of the kappa values for the images with low contrast generated with mammography equipment which was not properly calibrated, showing that the method is able to detect the performance changes associated with the loss of image quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kopans DB. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Boston: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nyathi T, Mwale AN, Segone P, Mhlanga SH, Pule ML. Radiographic viewing conditions at Johannesburg Hospital. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2008;4(2):e17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brazilian Health Ministry. Portaria da Secretaria de Vigilância Sanitária n#453. Diretrizes de Proteção Radiológica em Radiodiagnóstico Médico e Odontológico. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 02 de janeiro de 1998.

  4. American College of Radiology. Mammography quality control manual. Annapolis Junction: Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gurvich VA. Statistical approach for image quality. Evaluation in daily medical practice. Med Phys. 2000;27:94–100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Park SH, Goo JM, Goo JM, Jo CH. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: practical review for radiologists. Koreal J Radiol. 2004;5(1):11–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology. 2002;223(2):483–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol. 1989;24:234–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Egan JP. Signal detection theory and ROC analysis. London: Academic Press; 1975.

  11. Nuclear Associates: Division of Victoreen, Inc. ALVIM-Statistical Phantoms Instruction Manual Models 07-650/07-750/18-209. NY, USA.

  12. Pires SR, Elias S, Gauer M, Medeiros RB. Detectabilidad de Microcalcificaciones Y fibras Evaluadas Por Medio de Imágenes Simuladas Interpretadas en Negatoscopio Para Mamografía Y En Monitor. Radioprotección. 2006;49(XIII):121–123.

  13. Ruberti EM, Pires SR, Medeiros RB. Calidad Del Proceso Generador de Imágenes Mamográficas de Equipos Instalados en La Red Pública de Salud. Radioprotección. 2006;49(XIII):118–120.

  14. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. 1ª ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991. p. 397–439.

  15. Krug KB, Stützer H, Girnus R, Zähringer M, Goßmann A, Winnekendonk G, et al. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model. AJR. 2007;188:399–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gurvich VA. Statistical approach for image quality evaluation in daily medical practice. Med. Phys. 2000;27:94. doi:10.1118/1.598860.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Davydenko G, Gurvich V, Smekhov M. Application of StatPhantom Software for image quality evaluation. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15(1):219–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Robson KJ, Kotre CJ, Faulkner K. The use of a contrast-detail test object in the optimization of optical density in mammography. Br J Radiol. 2003;68:277–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piquet JC, Young K, et al. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study. Radiology. 2005;237:37–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology. 2003;229:3–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pires SR, Medeiros RB, Schiabel H. Management software for a database of mammography images classified by quality index. In: IFMBE Proceedings—World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, 2003. Sydney.

  23. Pires SR, Medeiros RB. Influence of monitor characteristics on the signals detection present in the mammographic phantom image. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 6917, 2008. p. 69171H-1–69171H-10.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) and MCT (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia—INCT em metrologia das radiações na medicina—reserch project).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Informática em Saúde, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Botucatu, 862 (térreo), Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, CEP 04023-062, Brazil

    Silvio R. Pires

  2. Departamento de Diagnóstico por Imagem, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Regina B. Medeiros

Authors
  1. Silvio R. Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Regina B. Medeiros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvio R. Pires.

About this article

Cite this article

Pires, S.R., Medeiros, R.B. Mammographic system performance using an image reading qualification method. Radiol Phys Technol 5, 213–221 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-012-0156-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-012-0156-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation