Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system

Medical Physics

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 811-824

  Marshall, Nicholas W ^a   Lemmens, Kim ^a   Bosmans, Hilde ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

computed radiography; digital mammography; DQE; MTF; NPS

Indexed keywords

IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; LIGHT EMISSION; MAMMOGRAPHY; NEPTUNIUM; OPTICAL TRANSFER FUNCTION; PHOSPHORS; RHODIUM COMPOUNDS; X RAY RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY SCREENS;

ABSORPTION FRACTION; COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY; DETECTIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY; DETECTOR PERFORMANCE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGING PERFORMANCE; NORMALIZED NOISE POWER SPECTRUM; PHOSPHOR TECHNOLOGIES;

NEEDLES;

AGFA;

EID: 84856962327     PISSN: 00942405     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1118/1.3675403     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. P. J. R. Leblans and L. Struye, New needle-crystalline CR detector., Proc. SPIE 4320, 59-67 (2001). 10.1117/12.430885
2. A. Mackenzie and I. D. Honey, Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors., Med. Phys. 34, 3345-3357 (2007). 10.1118/1.2750973
3. D. A. N. Vandenbroucke and P. J. R. Leblans, CR Mammography: Image quality measurement and model calculation for needle vs. powder imaging plate., in Digital Mammography 10th International Workshop, IWDM 2010, Girona, Spain, J Mart, A Oliver, J Freixenet, and, R Mart, eds. (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 219-226.
4. P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, and A. Skjennald, Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: Follow-up and final results of Oslo II study., Radiology 244, 708-717 (2007). 10.1148/radiol.2443061478
5. N. M. Hambly, M. M. McNicholas, N. Phelan, G. C. Hargaden, A. O'Doherty, and F. L. Flanagan, Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: A review in the Irish breast screening program., Am. J. Roentgen. 193, 1010-1018 (2009). 10.2214/AJR.08.2157
6. N. M. Perry, N. Patani, S. E. Milner, K. Pinker, K. Mokbel, P. C. Allgood, and S. W. Duffy, The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit., Eur. Radiol. 21, 676-682 (2011). 10.1007/s00330-010-1968-3
7. E. D. Pisano, C. Gatsonis, E. Hendrick, M. Yaffe, J. K. Baum, S. Acharyya, E. F. Conant, L. L. Fajardo, L. Bassett, C. D'Orsi, R. Jong, and M. Rebner, Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening., N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 1773-1783 (2005). 10.1056/NEJMoa052911
8. B. Heddson, K. Rönnow, M. Olsson, and D. Miller, Digital versus screen-film mammography: A retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program., Eur. J. Radiol. 64, 419-425 (2007). 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02. 030
9. European Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening, The European Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening. Part B: Digital Mammography, 4th ed. (European Commission, Luxembourg, 2006).
10. C. E. Metz, R. F. Wagner, K. Doi, D. G. Brown, R. M. Nishikawa, and K. J. Myers, Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems., Med. Phys. 22, 1057-1061 (1995). 10.1118/1.597511
11. K. A. Fetterly and B. A. Schueler, Performance evaluation of a dual-side read dedicated mammography computed radiography system., Med. Phys. 30, 1843-1854 (2003). 10.1118/1.1584045
12. P. Monnin, D. Gutierrez, D. Bulling, D. Lepori, J.-F. Valley, and F. R. Verdun, A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems., Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 2617-2631 (2005). 10.1088/0031-9155/50/11/012
13. P. Monnin, D. Gutierrez, S. Bulling, D. Guntern, and F. R. Verdun, A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems., Med. Phys. 34, 906-914 (2007). 10.1118/1.2432072
14. N. W. Marshall, P. Monnin, H. Bosmans, F. O. Bochud, and F. R. Verdun, Image quality assessment in digital mammography: Part I. Technical characterization of the systems., Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 4201-4220 (2011). 10.1088/0031-9155/56/14/002
15. H. Bosmans, K. Lemmens, J. Jacobs, B. Verbrugge, K. Michielsen, F. Zanca, J. Nens, C. Van Ongeval, and G. Marchal, Comparative technical study of two generations of CR plates for digital mammography., in Digital Mammography 9th International Workshop, IWDM 2008 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, L. Krupinski, ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp 724-731.
16. NHSBSP (National Health Service Breast Screening Programme), Technical Evaluation of Agfa DX-M Mammography CR Reader With HM5.0 Needle Image Plate, NHSBSP Equipment Report No. 0905 (NHSBSP Publications, Sheffield, 2009).
17. J. Yorkston, Recent developments in digital radiography detectors., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 580, 974-985 (2007). 10.1016/j.nima.2007.06.041
18. A. R. Lubinsky, W. Zhao, G. Ristic, and J. A. Rowlands, Screen optics effects on detective quantum efficiency in digital radiography: Zero-frequency effects., Med. Phys. 33, 1499-1509 (2006). 10.1118/1.2188082
19. C. Watt, K. Yan, G. DeCrescenzo, and J. A. Rowlands, The physics of computed radiography: Measurements of pulse height spectra of photostimulable phosphor screens using direct luminescence., Med. Phys. 32, 3589-3598 (2005). 10.1118/1.2122587
20. IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) Medical electrical equipment-Characteristics of digital X-ray image devices-Part 1: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency. IEC 62220-1-2 (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland) (2005).
21. E. Samei, M. J. Flynn, and D. A. Reimann A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device., Med. Phys. 25, 102-113 (1998). 10.1118/1.598165
22. N. W. Marshall, A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system., Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 2441-2463 (2006). 10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/006
23. J. A. Rowlands, The physics of computed radiography., Phys. Med. Biol. 47, R123-R166 (2002). 10.1088/0031-9155/47/23/201
24. G. Borasi, A. Nitrosi, P. Ferrari, and D. Tassoni, On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography., Med. Phys. 30, 1719-1731 (2003). 10.1118/1.1569273
25. A. Burgess On the noise variance of a digital mammography system., Med. Phys. 31, 1987-1995 (2004). 10.1118/1.1758791
26. NHSBSP (National Health Service Breast Screening Programme), Calculation of Quantitative Image Quality Parameters, NHSBSP Equipment Report No. 0902 (NHSBSP Publications, Sheffield, 2009).
27. J. C. Dainty and R. Shaw, Image science-Principles, analysis and evaluation of photographic-type imaging processes (Academic, London, 1974).
28. J. T. Dobbins III, E. Samei, N. T. Ranger, and Y. Chen, Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. II. Noise power spectrum., Med. Phys. 33, 1466-1475 (2006). 10.1118/1.2188819
29. W. Hillen, U. Schiebel, and T. Zaengel, Imaging performance of a digital storage phosphor system., Med. Phys. 14, 744-751 (1987). 10.1118/1.596127
30. S. M. Kengylics, J. H. Launders, and A. R. Cowen, Physical imaging performance of a compact computed radiography acquisition device., Med. Phys. 25, 354-360 (1998). 10.1118/1.598212
31. A. Alsager, K. C. Young, and J. M. Oduko, Impact of heel effect and ROI size on the determination of contrast-to-noise ratio for digital mammography systems., Proc. SPIE 6913, 69134I (2008). 10.1117/12.770651
32. EUREF Euref Type Testing Version 1.12. http://www.euref.org/index.php? option=com-contentview=articleid=20Itemid=35 (2011).
33. EUREF CDCOM version 1.5.2 Windows and CDCOM readme. http://www.euref.org/ index.php?option=com-phocadownloadview=categoryid=1Itemid=8 (2011).
34. N. Karssemeijer and M. A. O. Thijssen, Determination of contrast-detail curves of mammography systems by automated image analysis., in Digital Mammography, K. Doi, M. L. Giger, R. M. Nishikawa, and, R. A. Scmidt, eds. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 155-160 (1996).
35. K. C. Young, J. J. H. Cook, J. M. Okudo, and H. Bosmans, Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems., Proc. SPIE 6142, 614206 (2006). 10.1117/12.653296
36. D. R. Dance, C. L. Skinner, Y. C. Young, J. R. Beckett, and C. J. Kotre, Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol., Phys. Med. Biol. 45, 3225-3240 (2000). 10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/308
37. K. J. Robson, A parametric method for determining mammographic x-ray tube output and half value layer., Brit. J. Radiol. 74, 335-340 (2001).
38. H. Illers, D. A. N. Vandenbroucke, and E. Buhr, Measurement of correlated noise in images of computed radiography systems and its influence on the detective quantum efficiency., Proc. SPIE 5368, 639-647 (2004). 10.1117/12.535807
39. J. A. Rowlands and J. Yorkston, Flat Panel Detectors for Digital Radiology., Physics and Psychophysics, J. Beutel, H. L. Kundel, and, R. L. Van Metter, ed. (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2000), Vol. 1, pp. 223-328.
40. M. B. Williams, P. R. Mangiafico, and P. U. Simoni, Noise power spectra of images from digital mammography detectors., Med. Phys. 26, 1279-1293 (1999). 10.1118/1.598623
41. P. R. Granfors and R. Aufrichtig, Performance of a 4141-cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications., Med. Phys. 27, 1324-1331 (2000). 10.1118/1.599010
42. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), Medical imaging-The assessment of image quality. ICRU Report No. 54 (Bethesda, MD, USA, 1996)
43. J. Zimmermann, S. Hesse, H. von Seggern, M. Fuchs, and W. Knüpfer Radiation hardness of CsBr:Eu2, J. Lumin. 114, 24-30 (2005). 10.1016/j.jlumin.2004.11.011
44. M. Batentschuk, S. Neudert, M. Weidner, A. Osvet, L. Struye, J.-P. Tahon, and P. Leblans Radiation stability of CsBr:Eu needle image plates., J. Appl. Phys. 106, 083504 (2009). 10.1063/1.3243232
45. J. M. Boone, T. R. Fewell, and R. J. Jennings, Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography., Med. Phys. 24, 1863-1874 (1997). 10.1118/1.598100
46. P. Bernhardt, T. Mertelmeier, and M. Hoheisel, X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: Simulation and phantom study., Med. Phys. 33, 4337-4349 (2006). 10.1118/1.2351951
47. R. F. Wagner and D. G. Brown, Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems., Phys. Med. Biol. 30, 489-518 (1985). 10.1088/0031-9155/30/6/001
48. R. Aufrichtig, Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography., Med. Phys. 26, 1349-1358 (1999). 10.1118/1.598630
49. J. A. Segui and W. Zhao, Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: Validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments., Med. Phys. 33, 3711-3721 (2006). 10.1118/1.2349689
50. N. W. Marshall, A. Mackenzie, and I. D. Honey, Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors., Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 979-999 (2011). 10.1088/0031-9155/56/4/007
51. D. H. Kelly, Motion and vision II stabilized spatio-temporal threshold surface., J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69, 1340-1349 (1979). 10.1364/JOSA.69.001340