Image Quality of a Photon-Counting Mammography System Compared to Digital Mammography Based on Amorphous Silicon with CsI-Scintillator

  • Arne Fischmann
  • Günther Steidle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4046)


To compare image quality and dose of a photon-counting multi-slit scanner (PC) and a system based on amorphous silicon (aSi), images of the CDMAM 3.4 were taken in standard mode. For 3cm PMMA, the PC used 29kV/11.7mAs, aSi used 27kV/ 50mAs. For 5cm PMMA, PC used 35kV /14.8mAs, aSi used 31kV/ 50 mAs. Exposure was manually increased for PC and lowered for aSi-system. Average glandular dose and an image quality index (IQI) were calculated over the diameter ranges 0.06 – 2.0mm and 0.1-1. In standard mode with 3cm PMMA, IQI for PC was 35% lower than for aSi at 80% lower dose. Increased dose of PC resulted in 13% lower IQI at 57% lower dose. With 5cm PMMA IQI in standard mode was 18 % lower with PC at a 69% lower dose. Increasing the dose of PC resulted a 7% lower IQI at 54% lower dose. In conclusion the PC-system might reduce dose by up to 54% at equivalent image quality, although maximal quality of aSi could not be reached.


Image Quality Amorphous Silicon Digital Mammography Standard Mode Comparable Image Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dance, D.R., Skinner, C.L., Young, K.C., Beckett, J.R., Kotre, C.J.: Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys. Med. Biol. 45(11), 3225–3240 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hemdal, B., Andersson, I., Grahn, A., Håkansson, M., Ruschin, M., Thilander-Klang, A., Båth, M., Börjesson, S., Medin, J., Tingberg, A., Månsson, L.G., Mattsson, S.: Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 114(1-3), 383–388 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hermann, K.P., Obenauer, S., Funke, M., Grabbe, E.H.: Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur. Radiol. 12, 2188–2191 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arne Fischmann
    • 1
  • Günther Steidle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations