European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 3776–3787 | Cite as

A multiparametric automatic method to monitor long-term reproducibility in digital mammography: results from a regional screening programme

Breast
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to illustrate a multiparametric automatic method for monitoring long-term reproducibility of digital mammography systems, and its application on a large scale.

Methods

Twenty-five digital mammography systems employed within a regional screening programme were controlled weekly using the same type of phantom, whose images were analysed by an automatic software tool. To assess system reproducibility levels, 15 image quality indices (IQIs) were extracted and compared with the corresponding indices previously determined by a baseline procedure. The coefficients of variation (COVs) of the IQIs were used to assess the overall variability.

Results

A total of 2553 phantom images were collected from the 25 digital mammography systems from March 2013 to December 2014. Most of the systems showed excellent image quality reproducibility over the surveillance interval, with mean variability below 5%. Variability of each IQI was 5%, with the exception of one index associated with the smallest phantom objects (0.25 mm), which was below 10%.

Conclusions

The method applied for reproducibility tests—multi-detail phantoms, cloud automatic software tool to measure multiple image quality indices and statistical process control—was proven to be effective and applicable on a large scale and to any type of digital mammography system.

Key Points

• Reproducibility of mammography image quality should be monitored by appropriate quality controls.

• Use of automatic software tools allows image quality evaluation by multiple indices.

• System reproducibility can be assessed comparing current index value with baseline data.

• Overall system reproducibility of modern digital mammography systems is excellent.

• The method proposed and applied is cost-effective and easily scalable.

Keywords

Quality control Mammography Reproducibility Screening Breast cancer 

Abbreviations and acronyms

AEC

Automatic exposure control

AUMTF

Area under the MTF

BSL

Baseline

CNR

Contrast to noise ratio

COV

Coefficient of variation

FOM

Figure of merit

IQ

Image quality

IQI

Image quality index

LCL

Lower control limit

MTF

Modulation transfer function

NRμPart

Microparticle noise ratio

QCs

Quality controls

SD

Standard deviation

SDNR

Signal difference to noise ratio

SNR

Signal to noise ratio

UCL

Upper control limit

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

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Gisella Gennaro

Conflict of interest

A.B. and G.C. are employees of CyberQual

Funding

This project was supported by the Prevention Department of the Veneto Region

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (G.G.) has significant statistical expertise

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was not required because this is a phantom study

Methodology

a Retrospective

b Experimental

c Multicentre study

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission. Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLean ID (2011) Quality assurance programme for digital mammography. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gennaro G, Avramova-Cholakova S, Azzalini A et al (2015) Quality controls in digital mammography. Protocol of the EFOMP mammo working group. http://www.efomp.org/index.php/scientific-guidance-and-protocols/351-mammo-protocol
  4. 4.
    Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED et al (2006) Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: Part I. Med Phys 33:719–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Mawdsley GE et al (2006) Quality control for digital mammography: Part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial. Med Phys 33:737–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rose A (1948) The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J Opt Soc Am 38:196–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgess AE (1999) The rose model, revisited. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 16:633–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks KW, Trueblood JH, Kearfott KJ, Lawton DT (1997) Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images. Med Phys 24:709–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Dance DR (2002) How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography? Acad Radiol 9:764–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castellano Smith AD, Castellano Smith IA, Dance DR (1998) Objective assessment of phantom image quality in mammography: a feasibility study. Br J Radiol 71:48–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mayo P, Rodenas F, Verdu G, Villaescusa JI, Campayo JM (2004) Automatic evaluation of the image quality of a mammographic phantom. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 73:115–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pascoal A, Lawinski CP, Honey I, Blake P (2005) Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images–comparison with subjective visual assessment. Phys Med Biol 50:5743–5757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de las Heras H, Schofer F, Tiller B, Chevalier M, Zwettler G, Semturs F (2013) A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography. Phys Med Biol 58:L17–30Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chakraborty DP (1997) Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images. Med Phys 24:1269–1277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gennaro G, Ferro F, Contento G, Fornasin F, di Maggio C (2007) Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography. Phys Med Biol 52:1387–1407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee Y, Tsai DY, Shinohara N (2010) Computerized quantitative evaluation of mammographic accreditation phantom images. Med Phys 37:6323–6331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Asahara M, Kodera Y (2012) Computerized scheme for evaluating mammographic phantom images. Med Phys 39:1609–1617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerard K, Grandhaye JP, Marchesi V, Kafrouni H, Husson F, Aletti P (2009) A comprehensive analysis of the IMRT dose delivery process using statistical process control (SPC). Med Phys 36:1275–1285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheung YY, Jung B, Sohn JH, Ogrinc G (2012) Quality initiatives: statistical control charts: simplifying the analysis of data for quality improvement. Radiographics 32:2113–2126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shewhart WA (1986) Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Montgomery DC (2005) Introduction to statistical quality control. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leeds Test Objects (2014) TOR MAS/TOR MAX user manual. Leeds Test Objects, LeedsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Droege RT, Morin RL (1982) A practical method to measure the MTF of CT scanners. Med Phys 9:758–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Droege RT (1983) A practical method to routinely monitor resolution in digital images. Med Phys 10:337–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Droege RT, Rzeszotarski MS (1985) An MTF method immune to aliasing. Med Phys 12:721–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duncan AJ (1986) Quality control and industrial statistics, 5th edn. Irwin, HomewoodGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. NEJM 353:1773–1783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hendrick RE, Bassett L, Botsco MA et al (1999) Mammography quality control manual. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pedersen K, Landmark ID (2009) Trial of a proposed protocol for constancy control of digital mammography systems. Med Phys 36:5537–5546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Looney P, Halling-Brown MD, Oduko JM, Young KC (2015) A pilot study on the development of remote quality control of digital mammography systems in the NHS breast screening programme. J Digit Imaging 28:586–593CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV), IRCCSPaduaItaly
  2. 2.CyberQual srlGoriziaItaly

Personalised recommendations