A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 50, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 2617-2631

  Monnin, P ^a   Gutierrez, D ^a   Bulling, S ^a   Lepori, D ^b   Valley, J F ^a   Verdun, F R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC NOISE; DENSITY (OPTICAL); DETECTORS; IMAGE QUALITY; LASER BEAMS; MEDICAL IMAGING; OPTICAL RESOLVING POWER;

DETECTOR RESOLUTION; IMAGE QUALITY PARAMETERS; NYQUIST FREQUENCY; SCREEN-FILM SYSTEMS;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; OPTICAL DENSITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; X RAY FILM;

ALGORITHMS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; SOFTWARE; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 20044370857     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/11/012     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Arakawa S, Itoh W, Kohda K and Suzuki T 1999 Novel computed radiography system with improved image quality by detection of emissions from both sides of an imaging plate Proc. SPIE 3659 572-81
2. Arimura H, Kubota H, Matsumoto M and Kanamori H 1999 Proportionality between Wiener spectra of quantum mottle and the square of modulation transfer functions Phys. Med. Biol. 44 1337-52
3. Bunch P C 1999 Advances in high-speed mammographic image quality Proc. SPIE 3659 120-30
4. CEC (European Commission), Van Voudenberg S, Thijssen M, Young K and Törnberg S 1999 European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening 3rd edn Report EUR No 14821, Luxembourg
5. Coltman J W 1954 The specification of imaging properties by response to a sine wave input J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44 468-71
6. Cooper V N, Oshiro T, Cagnon C H, McLeod-Stockmann T M and Bezrukiy N V 2003 Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems Med. Phys. 30 2614-21
7. Dainty J C and Shaw R 1974 Image Science: Principles, Analysis and Evaluation of Photographic-type Imaging Processes (New York: Academic)
8. DIN 6868 Teil 55 1991 Sicherung der Bildqualität in röntgendiagnostischen Betrieben: Abnahmeprüfung an medizinischen Röntgen-Einrichtungen Funktionsprüfung der Filmverarbeitung Deutsche Norm Berlin, Deutschland
9. Dobbins J T 1995 Effects of undersampling on the proper interpretation of modulation transfer function, noise power spectra, and noise equivalent quanta of digital systems Med. Phys. 22 171-81
10. FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) 2005 http://www.fda.gov/CDRH/ MAMMOGRAPHY/scorecard-statistics.html
11. Giger M L and Doi K 1984 Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 6.MTFs of II-TV digital imaging systems Med. Phys. 11 287-95
12. Goodsitt M M, Shan H P, Liu B, Guru S V, Morton A R, Keshavmurthy S and Petrick N 1998 Classification of compressed breast shapes for the design of equalization filters in x-ray mammography Med. Phys. 25 937-48
13. IEC 62220-1 2003 Medical electrical equipment - characteristics of digital x-ray imaging devices - part 1: determination of the detective quantum efficiency International Electrotechnical Commission Geneva, Switzerland
14. ISO 9236-3 1999 Photography - sensitometry of screen/film systems for medical radiography - part 3: determination of sensitometric curve shape, speed and average gradient for mammography International Standard Geneva, Switzerland
15. Mammography Quality Standards Act 1992 42 USC 102-539
16. Muller S 1997 Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system Eur. J. Radiol. 31 25-34
17. Sabol J M, Tam K K and Plewes D B 1994 Rotary scanning equalization radiography: An efficient geometry for equalization mammography Med. Phys. 21 1523-33
18. Samei E, Flynn M J and Reimann D A 1998 A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device Med. Phys. 25 102-13
19. Seibert J A, Barnes G T and Gould R G 1991 Specification, Acceptance Testing and Quality Control of Diagnostic X-ray Imaging Equipment AAPM Mono 20, Santa Cruz, pp 60-5
20. Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski N A, Chilcote W A, Cardenosa G and Powell K A 2000 Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study Am. J. Roentgenol. 175 45-51
21. Swank R K 1973 Absorption and noise in x-ray phosphors J. Appl. Phys. 44 4199-203
22. Tabar L, Yen M F, Vitak B, Chen H H, Smith R A and Duffy S W 2003 Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening Lancet 361 1405-10
23. Yaffe M J and Rowlands J A 1997 X-ray detectors for digital mammography Phys. Med. Biol. 42 53-9