Advertisement

Contrast Threshold of 4 Full Field Digital Mammography Systems Using Different Measurement Methods

  • A. -K. Carton
  • H. Bosmans
  • C. Vanongeval
  • G. Souverijns
  • G. Marchal
  • J. Jacobs
  • D. Vandenbroucke
  • H. Pauwels
  • K. Nijs
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4046)

Abstract

We compared three conspicuity tests applied to four full field digital mammography (FFDM) systems. The tests included: 1) the calculation of noise equivalent quanta (NEQ); 2) contrast-detail analysis with the CDMAM 3.4 phantom and 3) evaluation of the detectability of (simulated) microcal-cifications with specific well-known dimensions in mastectomy images. For each contrast-resolution test method, the exposure, processing and viewing conditions were identical. As a result, the only variable for a given test was the physical performance of the detector. The three test methods each rank the detectors in the same order. The flat-panel detector ranked the best overall, the dual-sided read-out storage phosphor detector ranked second and the single-sided-read-out storage phosphor detectors with 50 μm and 100 μm pixel sizes ranked similarly and were inferior to the other 2 detectors.

Keywords

Modulation Transfer Function Contrast Threshold Digital Mammogram Full Field Digital Mammography Gold Thickness 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Medical Imaging - The Assessment of Image Quality, ICRU Report 54 (April 1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    User Manual CDMAM 3.4, Artinis, Medical Systems B.V.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carton, A.-K., Bosmans, H., Vanongeval, C., Souverijns, G., Rogge, F., Van Steen, A., Marchal, G.: Development and validation of a simulation procedure to study the visibility of microcalcifications in digital mammograms. Med. Phys. 30, 2234–2240 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carton, A.-K., Bosmans, H., Vandenbroucke, D., Souverijns, G., Van Ongeval, C., Dragusin, O.: Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible micro alcifications in full field digital mammograms. Med. Phys. 31, 2165–2176 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Samei, E., Flynn, M.J., Reimann, D.A.: A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. Med. Phys. 25, 102–113 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dobbins III, J.T.: Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems. In: Hanbook of Medical Imaging, ch. 3. Physics and Psychophysics, SPIE 2000, vol. 1 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swets, J.A., Pickett, R.M.: Evaluation of diagnostic systems: Methods from signal detection theory. Academic Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burgess, A.E.: Mammographic structure: Data preparation and spatial statistics analysis. In: Hanson, K. (ed.) Medical Imaging 1999: Image Processing, vol. 3661, pp. 642–653. SPIE, Bellingham (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chakraborty, D.P.: The FROC, AFROC and DROC variants of the ROC Analysis. In: Beutel, J., Kundel, H.L., Van Metter, R.L. (eds.) Handbook of medical imaging, Physics and Psychophysics, ch. 16, vol. 1. SPIE, Bellingham (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Efron, B.: The Jacknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. SIAM, Philadelphia (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The European Protocol for the Quality Control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening: Addendum on Digital Mammography (November 2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. -K. Carton
    • 1
  • H. Bosmans
    • 1
  • C. Vanongeval
    • 1
  • G. Souverijns
    • 2
  • G. Marchal
    • 1
  • J. Jacobs
    • 1
  • D. Vandenbroucke
    • 3
  • H. Pauwels
    • 1
  • K. Nijs
    • 1
  1. 1.Radiology, University Hospital GasthuisbergB-Leuven
  2. 2.Virga-JesseB-Hasselt
  3. 3.AgfaB-Mortsel

Personalised recommendations