Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 2845-2861

  Marshall, N W ^a  

^a ST BARTHOLOMEW S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR KERMA; AMORPHOUS SELENIUM; C-SI SYSTEMS; CAESIUM IODIDE; DETECTIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY; DETECTOR RESPONSE; ENERGY ABSORPTION EFFICIENCY; ENERGY DEPENDENCE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; MEAN ENERGY; MEASURED DATA; MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION; NARROW BEAMS; NORMALIZED NOISE; PIXEL VALUES; QUANTUM DETECTION EFFICIENCY; SPECTRAL DATA; TARGET DETECTORS; X-RAY BEAM QUALITIES; X-RAY DETECTOR;

CESIUM; DATA REDUCTION; DETECTORS; ENERGY ABSORPTION; MAMMOGRAPHY; OPTICAL TRANSFER FUNCTION; PARTICLE DETECTORS; SELENIUM; SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM DOTS;

QUANTUM EFFICIENCY;

CESIUM; CESIUM IODIDE; POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE); POLYCARBONATE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; IODIDE; SELENIUM;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ENERGY; ENERGY ABSORPTION; FILTER; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAMMOGRAPHY; MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION; PHOTON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; X RAY; ABSORPTION; INSTRUMENTATION; SPECTROSCOPY;

ABSORPTION; CESIUM; IODIDES; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SELENIUM; SPECTRUM ANALYSIS;

EID: 67649871970     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/9/017     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T and Hoheisel M 2006 X-ray spectrum optimisation of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study Med. Phys. 33 4337-49
2. Bloomquist A K et al 2006 Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I Med. Phys. 33 719-36
3. Boone J M 2000 X-ray production, interaction and detection in diagnostic imaging Handbook of Medical Imaging, Vol. 1, Physics and Psychophysics ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L van Metter (Bellingham, WA: SPIE) pp 1-78
4. Boone J M and Chavez A E 1996 Comparison of x-ray cross sections for diagnostic and therapeutic medical physics Med. Phys. 23 1997-2005
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. Burgess A E 1999 The Rose model, revisited J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16 633-46
7. CEP 2006 Full Field Digital Mammography Systems Hologic Selenia: a technical report CEP Report 05084 Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing
8. Cranley K, Gilmore B J, Fogarty G W A and Desponds L 1997 Catalogue of diagnostic x-ray spectra and other data IPEM Report 78 (York: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine)
9. 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
10. Dance D R, Skinner C L, Young K C, Beckett J R and Kotre C J 2003 Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol Phys. Med. Biol 45 3225-40
11. Dance D R, Thilander A K, Sandborg M, Skinner C L, Castellano I A and Carlsson G A 2000 Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study Brit. J. Radiol. 73 1056-67
12. 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
13. EC (European Commission) 2006 European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis 4th edn (Brussels: European Commission)
14. 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
15. Fetterly K A and Hangiandreou N J 2001 Effects of x-ray spectra on the DQE of a computed radiography system Med. Phys. 28 241-9
16. Grosjean B, Muller S and Souchay H 2007 Tools and methods for exposure control optimization in digital mammography in presence of texture Proc. SPIE 6515 651518-1-12
17. IEC 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 (IEC))
18. Illers H, Vandenbroucke D and Buhr E 2004 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 2005 Commissioning and routine testing of mammographic x-ray systems Report 89 (York: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine)
20. Mackenzie A and Honey I D 2007 Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors Med. Phys. 34 3345-57
21. 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
22. Marshall N W 2006b Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system Phys. Med. Biol. 51 5655-73
23. Marshall N W 2007 Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems Phys. Med. Biol. 52 5545-68
24. Monnin P, Gutierrez D, Bulling S, Guntern D and Verdun F R 2007 A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems Med. Phys. 34 906-14
25. NHSBSP (National Health Service Breast Screening Programme) 2006 Commissioning and routine testing of full field digital mammography systems NHSBSP Equipment Report 0604 (Sheffield: NHSBSP)
26. NHSBSP (National Health Service Breast Screening Programme) 2007 Technical evaluation of Siemens novation full field digital mammography system NHSBSP Equipment Report 0711 (Sheffield: NHSBSP)
27. Rimkus D A and Bailey N A 1983 Quantum noise in detectors Med. Phys. 10 470-1
28. Rose A 1948 The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale J. Opt. Soc. Am. 38 196-208
29. Rowlands J A and Yorkston J 2000 Flat panel detectors for digital radiology Physics and Psychophysics vol 1 ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L Van Metter (Bellingham, WA: SPIE) pp 223-328
30. 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
31. Samei E and Flynn M J 2003 An experimental comparison of detect or performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems Med. Phys. 30 608-22
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. Shramchenko N, Blin P, Mathey C and Klausz R 2004 Optimized exposure control in digital mammography Proc. SPIE 5368 445-56
34. Suryanarayanan A, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Ved H and D'Orsi C J 2003 Theoretical and empirical characterization of the physical characteristics of a clinical digital mammography system Proc. SPIE 5030 929-38
35. Swank R K 1973 Absorption and noise in x-ray phosphors J. Appl. Phys. 44 4199-203
36. Yaffe MJ et al 2006 Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial Med. Phys. 33 737-52
37. Young K C, Oduko J M, Bosmans H, Nijs K and Martinez L 2006 Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography Br. J. Radiol. 79 981-90