Adapting Clinical Images to Appear with Different Noise and Sharpness to Model a Different Detector

  • Alistair Mackenzie
  • Adam Workman
  • David R. Dance
  • Mary Yip
  • Kevin Wells
  • Kenneth C. Young
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6136)

Abstract

Comparing the clinical performance of digital mammography technologies is challenging. The aim of this work is to develop and test a methodology for adjusting mammographic images taken on a given imaging system to simulate their appearance as if taken on a different system. Such methodology would be very useful for a wide range of system performance and design studies using both phantom and clinical images. The process involves changing the image blurring in accordance with the measured modulation transfer functions and adding noise (electronic, quantum and structure). The method has been tested by adapting flat field images acquired using an amorphous selenium detector and a computed radiography (CR) detector to different dose levels and comparing the resultant simulated NPSs with directly measured NPSs. For the detectors used in this work the NPSs at different dose levels are well predicted. This could be a powerful tool for studies of clinical image quality.

Keywords

mammography simulation noise 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marshall, N.W.: A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system. Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 2441–2463 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Båth, M., Hakansson, M., Tingberg, A., Mansson, L.G.: Method of simulating dose reduction for digital radiographic systems. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 114, 253–259 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Svalkvist, A., Båth, M.: Simulation of dose reduction in tomosynthesis. Medical Physics 37, 258 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Workman, A.: Simulation of Digital Mammography. Proc. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 5745, 933–942 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mackenzie, A., Honey, I.D.: Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors. Med. Phys. 34, 3345–3357 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evans, D.S., Workman, A., Payne, M.: A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography. Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 117–135 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEC: Medical electrical equipment -Characteristics of digital x-ray imaging devices -Determination of the detective quantum efficiency -Detectors used in mammography. IEC 62220-1-2 , International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland (2007) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    NHSBSP: Calculation of Quantitative Image Quality Parameters - Notes Describing the Use of OBJ_IQ_reduced. Equipment report 0902, NHSBSP, Sheffield, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saunders Jr., R.S., Samei, E.: A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images. Med. Phys. 30, 3006–3017 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alistair Mackenzie
    • 1
  • Adam Workman
    • 2
  • David R. Dance
    • 1
    • 3
  • Mary Yip
    • 4
  • Kevin Wells
    • 4
  • Kenneth C. Young
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of MammographyRoyal Surrey County HospitalGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Northern Ireland Regional Medical Physics AgencyForster Green HospitalBelfastUK
  3. 3.Department of physicsUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  4. 4.Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing, Faculty of Engineering, and Physical SciencesUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations