A novel method for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation of digital mammography detectors

European Radiology

Volumn 19, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 2275-2285

  Baldelli, Paola ^a   Phelan, N ^a   Egan, G ^a  

^a BreastCheck   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Contrast to noise ratio; Digital mammography; Image quality

Indexed keywords

POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ARTICLE; BREAST; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DISPLAY SYSTEM; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SCANNING PHOTON COUNTING DIGITAL DETECTOR; SIGNAL DETECTION;

ALGORITHMS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 68449098084     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1409-3     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Kopans DB (1994) Screening for breast cancer and mortality reduction among women 40-49 years of age. Cancer 74:311-322
2. Tabar L, Dean PB (2003) Mammography and breast cancer: The new era. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 82:319-326
3. Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G (2006) Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: Dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Phys 33:4221-4235
4. Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson G (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. Br J Radiol 73:1056-1067
5. Boone JM, Cooper NV (2000) Scatter/primary in mammography: Monte Carlo validation. Med Phys 27:1818-1831
6. Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Cooper NV, Seibert JA (2000) Scatter/primary in mammography: Comprehensive results. Med Phys 27:2408-2416
7. Nishino KT, Wu X, Johnson FR (2005) Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol 185:960-963
8. Tapiovaara JM, Wagner RF (1993) SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: I. A practical approach based on statistical decision theory. Phys Med Biol 38:71-92
9. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (eds) (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Commission, Luxemburg, ISBN 92-79-01258-4
10. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225-3240
11. ImageJ. Available via http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/. Accessed 1 Dec 2008
12. QA-distri. Available via http://sourceforge.net/projects/qa-distri/. Accessed 1 Dec 2008
13. Bijkerk KR, Thijssen M, Arnoldussen T (2000) Modification of the CDMAM contrast-detail phantom for image quality of full field digital mammography systems. In: Yaffe M (ed) Proceedings of IWDM 2000. Medical Physics, Madison, WI, pp 633-640
14. Young KC, Cook JH, Oduko JM (2006) Automated and human determination of threshold contrast for digital mammography systems. In: Astley SM et al (eds) IWDM 2006. Lecture notes in computer science 4046. Springer, Berlin, pp 266-272
15. Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M (1996) Determination of contrast detail curves in mammography systems by automated image analysis. In: Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA (eds) IWDM 96. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 155-60