Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 539-548

  Thierens, Hubert ^a   Bosmans, Hilde ^b   Buls, Nico ^c   De Hauwere, An ^a   Bacher, Klaus ^a   Jacobs, Jurgen ^b   Clerinx, Peter ^c  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

^c FREE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Digital; Mammography; Physical characteristics; Screening

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA; BREAST CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CR SYSTEM; DIGITAL; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; DIRECT PHOTONS; DIRECT READOUT; DOSE LEVELS; FLAT PANEL; FULL RESOLUTIONS; GENERATING SYSTEM; HIGH QUALITY; IMAGE CAPTURES; IMAGE DISPLAY; LCD MONITORS; LOW DOSE; MEGA-PIXEL; PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS;

LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; X RAY RADIOGRAPHY;

IMAGE QUALITY;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIRECT READOUT SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; MONITOR; PARAMETER; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; THICKNESS;

BELGIUM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 67349276682     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.01.046     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Pisano E., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353 (2005) 1773-1783
2. Skaane P., and Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-the Oslo II study. Radiology 236 (2004) 404-412
3. Krug K.B., Stutzer H., Girnus R., et al. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model. Am J Roentgenol 188 (2007) 399-409
4. Moran P., Chevalier M., Ten J., Sot J., and Vano E. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in full field digital mammography systems. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114 (2005) 375-379
5. Van Engen R., Young K., Bosmans H., and Thijssen M. The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. Part 2b. Digital mammography in European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (2006), European Communities. 92-79-01258-4
6. Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM). Part 14. Greyscale standard display function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) PS 3.14; 2001.
7. Samei E. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems (2002), American Association Physicists in Medicine AAPM Task Group p. 18
8. Cush S. Evaluation of digital mammography: update of the UK position. Breast Cancer Res 8 (2006) P2
9. Monnin P., Guttierrez D., Bulling S., Guntern D., and Verdun F.R. A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems. Med Phys 34 3 (2007) 906-914
10. The International Electrotechnical Commission: IEC 61223-3-2 Ed.2. Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments. Part 3-2. Acceptance tests-imaging performance of mammographic X-ray equipment [committee draft for vote].
11. Satoh K., Kuwabara T., Yasuda H., and Arakawa S. Optimization of image quality and average glandular dose in CR mammography. Proc SPIE 6510 65104H (2007) 1-11
12. Toroi P., Zanca F., Young K.C., van Ongeval C., Marchal G., and Bosmans H. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium target/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur Radiol 17 (2007) 2368-2375
13. Dance D.R., Thilander Klang A., Sandborg M., Skinner C.L., Castellano S., and Alm Carlsson G. Influence of target/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 73 (2000) 1056-1067
14. Zuley M.L., Willison K.M., Bonaccio E., et al. Full-field mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors. Am J Roentgenol 187 (2006) 1492-1498
15. Samei E., Poolla A., Ulissey M.J., and Lewin J.M. Digital mammography: comparative performance of color LCD and monochrome CRT displays. Acad Radiol 14 (2007) 539-546
16. Bacher K., Smeets P., De Hauwere A., et al. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection. Eur J Rad 58 (2006) 471-479
17. Kamitani T., Yabuuchi H., Soeda H., et al. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3 megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5 megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur J Rad 17 (2007) 1365-1371
18. Pisano E.D., Cole E.B., Hemminger B.M., et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20 (2000) 1479-1491