Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Mammographic Artifacts on Full-Field Digital Mammography

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the incidence of full-field digital mammographic (FFDM) artifacts with three systems at two institutions and compares the artifacts between two detector types and two grid types. A total of 4,440 direct and 4,142 indirect FFDM images were reviewed by two radiologists, and artifacts were classified as patient related, hardware related, and software processing. The overall incidence of FFDM artifacts was 3.4 % (292/8,582). Patient related artifacts (motion artifacts and skin line artifacts) were the most commonly detected types (1.7 %). Underexposure among hardware related artifacts and high-density artifacts among software processing artifacts also were common (0.7 and 0.5 %, respectively). These artifacts, specific to digital mammography, were more common with the direct detector type and the crossed air grid type than with the indirect type and linear grid type (p < 0.05). The most common mammographic artifacts on FFDM were patient related, which might be controlled by the instruction of a patient and technologist. Underexposure and high-density artifacts were more common with direct detector and crossed air type of grid.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ayyala RS, Chorlton M, Behrman RH, Kornguth PJ, Slanetz PJ: Digital mammographic artifacts on full-field systems: what are they and how do I fix them? Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 28:1999–2008, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  2. Geiser WR, Haygood TM, Santiago L, Stephens T, Thames D, Whitman GJ: Challenges in mammography: part 1, artifacts in digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W1023–W1030, 2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E: Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702, 2002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE, Hunter DM, Beideck DJ: Lag and ghosting in a clinical flat-panel selenium digital mammography system. Med Phys 33:2998–3005, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Ongeval C, Jacobs J, Bosmans H: Artifacts in digital mammography. JBR-BTR: organe de la Societe royale belge de radiologie (SRBR) = orgaan van de Koninklijke Belgische Vereniging voor Radiologie (KBVR) 91:262–263, 2008

  6. Boone JM, et al: Development and Monte Carlo analysis of antiscatter grids for mammography. Technol Cancer Res Treat 1:441–447, 2002

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hurtienne B. Ask Anne: changing mammography techniques for digital mammography. http://blog.carestreamhealth.com/-EverythingRad. Accessed December 9, 2012

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sung Hun Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choi, J.J., Kim, S.H., Kang, B.J. et al. Mammographic Artifacts on Full-Field Digital Mammography. J Digit Imaging 27, 231–236 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-013-9641-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-013-9641-4

Keywords

Navigation