European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 9, pp 2275–2285

A novel method for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation of digital mammography detectors

Physics

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test a new, simple method of evaluating the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) over the entire image field of a digital detector and to compare different mammography systems. Images were taken under clinical exposure conditions for a range of simulated breast thicknesses using poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). At each PMMA thickness, a second image which included an additional 0.2-mm Al sheet was also acquired. Image processing software was used to calculate the CNR in multiple regions of interest (ROI) covering the entire area of the detector in order to obtain a ‘CNR image’. Five detector types were evaluated, two CsI–αSi (GE Healthcare) flat panel systems, one αSe (Hologic) flat panel system and a two generations of scanning photon counting digital detectors (Sectra). Flat panel detectors exhibit better CNR uniformity compared with the first-generation scanning photon counting detector in terms of mean pixel value variation. However, significant improvement in CNR uniformity was observed for the next-generation scanning detector. The method proposed produces a map of the CNR and a measurement of uniformity throughout the entire image field of the detector. The application of this method enables quality control measurement of individual detectors and a comparison of detectors using different technologies.

Keywords

Digital mammography Image quality Contrast-to-noise ratio 

References

  1. 1.
    Kopans DB (1994) Screening for breast cancer and mortality reduction among women 40–49 years of age. Cancer 74:311–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tabar L, Dean PB (2003) Mammography and breast cancer: the new era. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 82:319–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G (2006) Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Phys 33:4221–4235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson G (2000) Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 73:1056–1067PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boone JM, Cooper NV (2000) Scatter/primary in mammography: Monte Carlo validation. Med Phys 27:1818–1831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Cooper NV, Seibert JA (2000) Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results. Med Phys 27:2408–2416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishino KT, Wu X, Johnson FR (2005) Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol 185:960–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tapiovaara JM, Wagner RF (1993) SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: I. A practical approach based on statistical decision theory. Phys Med Biol 38:71–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (eds) (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Commission, Luxemburg, ISBN 92-79-01258-4Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ImageJ. Available via http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/. Accessed 1 Dec 2008
  12. 12.
    QA-distri. Available via http://sourceforge.net/projects/qa-distri/. Accessed 1 Dec 2008
  13. 13.
    Bijkerk KR, Thijssen M, Arnoldussen T (2000) Modification of the CDMAM contrast-detail phantom for image quality of full field digital mammography systems. In: Yaffe M (ed) Proceedings of IWDM 2000. Medical Physics, Madison, WI, pp 633–640Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Young KC, Cook JH, Oduko JM (2006) Automated and human determination of threshold contrast for digital mammography systems. In: Astley SM et al (eds) IWDM 2006. Lecture notes in computer science 4046. Springer, Berlin, pp 266–272Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M (1996) Determination of contrast detail curves in mammography systems by automated image analysis. In: Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA (eds) IWDM 96. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 155–60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BreastCheckThe National Cancer Screening ServiceDublin 7Ireland

Personalised recommendations