Contrast Threshold of 4 Full Field Digital Mammography Systems Using Different Measurement Methods
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.
KeywordsModulation Transfer Function Contrast Threshold Digital Mammogram Full Field Digital Mammography Gold Thickness
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Medical Imaging - The Assessment of Image Quality, ICRU Report 54 (April 1996)Google Scholar
- 2.User Manual CDMAM 3.4, Artinis, Medical Systems B.V.Google Scholar
- 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.Swets, J.A., Pickett, R.M.: Evaluation of diagnostic systems: Methods from signal detection theory. Academic Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
- 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.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.Efron, B.: The Jacknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. SIAM, Philadelphia (1982)Google Scholar
- 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