Image quality assessment in digital mammography: Part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 14, 2011, Pages 4221-4238

  Monnin, P ^a,b   Marshall, N W ^c   Bosmans, H ^c   Bochud, F O ^a   Verdun, F R ^a  

^a LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

^b Haute Ecole Cantonale Vaudoise de la Santé HECVSanté   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR KERMA; ALTERNATIVE METHODS; CDMAM PHANTOM; CONTRAST DETAIL ANALYSIS; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CONTROL AND OPTIMIZATION; DETECTABILITY; DETECTABILITY INDEX; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; EYE FILTERS; IMAGE CONTRASTS; IMAGE QUALITY ASSESSMENT; LINEAR RELATIONSHIPS; MODEL OBSERVER; NORMALIZED NOISE POWER SPECTRUM; QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS; SCREENING PROGRAMS; TEST OBJECT; X-RAY MAMMOGRAPHY; X-RAY SYSTEM;

ESTERS; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY;

QUALITY CONTROL;

ARTICLE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD;

HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 79960374186     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/14/003     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alsager A, Young K C and Oduko J M 2008 Impact of heel effect and ROI size on the determination of contrast-to-noise ratio for digital mammography systems Proc. SPIE 6913 69134I
2. Aufrichtig R 1999 Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography Med. Phys. 26 1349-58 (Pubitemid 29334803)
3. 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
4. Barten G J 1992 Physical model from the contrast sensitivity of the human eye Proc. SPIE 1666 57-72
5. Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T and Hoheisel M 2006 X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study Med. Phys. 33 4337-43
6. Bloomquist A K et al 2006 Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I Med. Phys. 33 719-36
7. Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Ferrari P and Tassoni D 2003 On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography Med. Phys. 30 1719-30
8. 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 (Pubitemid 43830259)
9. Bosmans H, Carton A-K, Rogge F, Zanca F, Jacobs J, Ongeval C V, Nijs K, Steen A V and Marchal G 2005 Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 117 120-30
10. Bradford C D, Peppler W W and Dobbins J T 1999 Performance characteristics of a Kodak computed radiography system Med. Phys. 26 27-37 (Pubitemid 29054983)
11. Burgess A E 1995 Comparison of non-prewhitening and Hotelling observer models Proc. SPIE 2436 2-9
12. Carlson C R, Cohen R W and Gorog I 1977 Visual processing of simple two-dimensional sine-wave luminance gratings Vis. Res. 17 351-8 (Pubitemid 8101051)
13. Desponds L, Depeursinge C, Grecescu M, Hessler C, Samiri A and Valley J-F 1991 Image quality index (IQI) for screen-film mammography Phys. Med. Biol. 36 19-33
14. Dobbins J T, Ergun D L, Rutz L, Hinshaw D A, Blume H and Clark D C 1995 DQE(f) of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices Med. Phys. 22 1581-93
15. European Commission 2006 The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening: part B. Digital mammography European Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening 4th edn (Luxembourg: European Commission)
16. Gagne R M, Gallas B D and Myers K J 2006 Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms Med. Phys. 33 83-95 (Pubitemid 43121036)
17. IEC 2005 Medical electrical equipment - characteristics of digital x-ray imaging devices: part 1-2. Determination of the detective quantum efficiency - mammography detectors IEC 62220-1-2 (Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission)
18. Kelly D H 1979 Motion and vision II stabilized spatio-temporal threshold surface J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69 1340-9
19. 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 (Pubitemid 47175801)
20. Marshall N W 2006 A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system Phys. Med. Biol. 51 2441-63
21. Marshall N W, Monnin P, Bosmans H, Bochud F O and Verdun F R 2011 Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems Phys. Med. Biol. 56 4201-20
22. 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 (Pubitemid 46355654)
23. Oberhofer N, Paruccini N and Moroder E 2008 Image quality assessment and equipment optimisation with automated phantom evaluation in full field digital mammography (FFDM) IWDM (Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol 5116) pp 235-42
24. Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Bertolini M, Borasi G, Golinelli P, Acchiapati D and Gallo E 2009 Physical and psychophysical characterization of a novel clinical system for digital mammography Med. Phys. 36 5139-48
25. Rose A 1948 The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale J. Opt. Soc. Am. 38 196-208
26. Rowlands J A 2002 The physics of computed radiography Phys. Med. Biol. 47 R123-66
27. Salvagnini E, Bosmans H, Monnin P, Struelens L, Verdun F R and Marshall N W 2011 The use of detectability indices as a means of automatic exposure control for a digital mammography system Proc. SPIE 7961 79615J
28. Segui J A and Zhao W 2006 Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments Med. Phys. 33 3711-21
29. Van Metter R, Heath M and Fletcher-Heath L 2006 Applying the European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening threshold contrast visibility assessment to digital systems Proc. SPIE 6142 614205
30. Veldkamp W J H, Thijssen M A and Karssemeijer N 2003 The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography Med. Phys. 30 1712-8 (Pubitemid 36885788)
31. Verbrugge B 2007 Validation of analysis methods for automated CDMAM reading http://www.kuleuven.be/radiology/lucmfr/erica/downloads/documents/ BeatrijsVerbruggeThesisCdmamComparison.pdf
32. Wagner R F and Brown D G 1985 Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems Phys. Med. Biol. 30 489-518 (Pubitemid 15041524)
33. Wagner R F, Brown D G and Pastel M S 1979 Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography Med. Phys. 6 83-94 (Pubitemid 9168374)
34. Williams M B et al 2008 Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography Med. Phys. 35 2414-23 (Pubitemid 351748649)
35. Young K C, Alsager A, Oduko J M, Bosmans H, Verbrugge B, Geertse T and Van Engen R 2008 Evaluation of software for reading of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems Proc. SPIE 6913 69131C-1-11
36. Young K C, Cook J J H and Oduko J M 2006a Use of the European protocol to optimise a digital mammography system Proc. 8th Int. Workshop on Digital Mammography (Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol 4046) (Berlin: Springer) pp 362-9 (Pubitemid 44113132)
37. Young K C, Cook J J H, Okudo J M and Bosmans H 2006b Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems Proc. SPIE 6142 614206