Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 52, Issue 18, 2007, Pages 5545-5568

  Marshall, N W ^a  

^a ST BARTHOLOMEW S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; QUALITY ASSURANCE; TRANSFER FUNCTIONS;

FFDM PROTOCOL; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY (FFDM) SYSTEMS;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; GEOMETRY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; GREAT BRITAIN; MAMMOGRAPHY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 35848968890     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/18/006     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aufrichtig R 1999 Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography Med. Phys. 26 1349-58
2. Aufrichtig R and Xue P 2000 Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography Phys. Med. Biol. 45 2653-69
3. Bloomquist A K et al 2006 Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I Med. Phys. 33 719-36
4. Borasi G, Samei E, Bertolini M, Nitrosi A and Tassoni D 2006 Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography Med. Phys. 33 1707-19
5. Brock M and Slump C H 1989 Automatic determination of image quality parameters in digital radiographic imaging systems Proc. SPIE 1090 246-56
6. Carton A K, Vandenbroucke D, Struye L, Maidment A D, Kao Y H, Albert M, Bosmans H and Marchal G 2005 Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control Med. Phys. 32 1684-95
7. CEP (Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing) 2006 Computed Radiography (CR) Systems for General Radiography: a Comparative Report Report 06033 2nd edn ed I D Honey et al (London, UK: Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing)
8. Cunningham I A and Reid B K 1992 Signal and noise in modulation transfer function determinations using slit, wire and edge techniques Med. Phys. 19 1037-44
9. Dobbins J T III 1995 Effects of undersampling on the proper interpretation of modulation transfer function, noise power spectra, and noise equivalent quanta of digital imaging systems Med. Phys. 22 171-81
10. Dobbins J T III 2000 Image quality metrics for digital systems Physics and Psychophysics Vol 1 of Handbook of Medical Imaging ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L Van Metter (Bellingham: SPIE) pp 161-222
11. Dobbins J T III, Samei E, Ranger N T and Chen Y 2006 Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization: II. Noise power spectrum Med. Phys. 33 1466-75
12. EC (European Commission) 2006 European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis 4th edn (Brussels: European Commission)
13. Evans D S, Workman A and Payne M 2002 A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography Phys. Med. Biol. 47 117-35
14. Giger M L and Doi K 1984 Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography: 1. Modulation transfer function Med. Phys. 11 287-94
15. Hay G A, Clarke O F, Coleman N J and Cowen A R 1985 A set of x-ray test objects for quality control in television fluoroscopy Br. J. Radiol. 58 335-44
16. IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 2004 Medical electrical equipment-characteristics of digital x-ray imaging devices: Part 1. Determination of the detective quantum efficiency IEC 62220-1 (Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission)
17. Illers H, Buhr E, Bergmann D and Hoeschen C 2004a Measurement of the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of digital x-ray imaging devices according to the standard IEC 62220-1 Proc. SPIE 5368 177-87
18. Illers H, Vandenbroucke D and Buhr E 2004b Measurement of correlated noise in images of computed radiography systems and its influence on the detective quantum efficiency Proc. SPIE 5368 639-47
19. IPEM 2005a Commissioning and Routine Testing of Mammographic X-Ray Systems Report 89 ed A C Moore, D R Dance, D S Evans, C P Lawinski, E M Pitcher, A Rust and K C Young (New York: IPEM)
20. IPEM 2005b Recommended Standards for the Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Systems Report 91 ed P Hiles, A Mackenzie, A Scally and B Wall (New York: IPEM)
21. Maidment A D A, Albert M, Bunch P C, Cunningham I A, Dobbins J T III, Gagne R M, Nishikawa R M, Wagner R F and Van Metter R L 2003 Standardization of NPS measurement: interim report of AAPM TG16 Proc. SPIE 5030 523-32
22. Marshall N W 2001 The practical application of signal detection theory to image quality assessment in x-ray image intensifier-TV fluoroscopy Phys. Med. Biol. 46 1631-49
23. Marshall N W 2006a A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system Phys. Med. Biol. 51 2441-63
24. Marshall N W 2006b Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system Phys. Med. Biol. 51 5655-73
25. Metz C E, Wagner R F, Doi K, Brown D G, Nishikawa R M and Myers K J 1995 Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems Med. Phys. 22 1057-61
26. NHSBSP (National Health Service Breast Screening Programme) 2006 Commissioning and Routine Testing of Full Field Digital Mammography Systems NHSBSP Equipment Report 0604 (Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications)
27. Rowlands J A 2002 The physics of computed radiography Phys. Med. Biol. 47 R123-66
28. Rowlands J A and Yorkston J 2000 Flat panel detectors for digital radiography Physics and Psychophysics Vol 1 of Handbook of Medical Imaging ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L Van Metter (Bellingham: SPIE) pp 223-328
29. Samei E and Flynn M J 2002 An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems Med. Phys. 29 447-59
30. Samei E and Flynn M J 2003 An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems Med. Phys. 30 608-22
31. 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
32. Samei E, Ranger N T, Dobbins J T III and Chen Y 2006 Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization: I. Modulation transfer function Med. Phys. 33 1454-65
33. Siewerdsen J H, Antonuk L E, el-Mohri Y, Yorkston J, Huang W, Boudry J M and Cunningham I A 1997 Empirical and theoretical investigation of the noise performance of indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for diagnostic radiology Med. Phys. 24 71-89
34. Tapiovaara M J 1993 SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: II. Application to fluoroscopic x-ray equipment Phys. Med. Biol. 38 1761-88
35. van Engen R E, Swinkels L J, Oostveen T D, Geertse T D and Visser R 2006 Using a homogeneity test as weekly quality control on digital mammography units Proc. 8th Int. Workshop on Digital Mammography LNCS vol 4046 ed S M Astley, M Brady, C Rose and R Zwiggelarr (Berlin: Springer)
36. Wagner R F and Brown D G 1985 Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems Phys. Med. Biol. 30 489-518
37. Workman A and Cowen A R 1993 Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography Phys. Med. Biol. 38 1789-1808
38. Yaffe M J et al 2006 Quality control for digital mammography: Part II recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial Med. Phys. 33 737-52
39. Yorker J G, Jeromin L S, Lee D L Y, Palecki E F, Golden K P and Jing Z 2002 Characterization of a full field digital mammography detector based on direct x-ray conversion in selenium Proc. SPIE 4682 21-9