Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system

Medical Physics

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 2721-2734

  MacKenzie, Alistair ^a,b   Dance, David R ^a,b   Workman, Adam ^c   Yip, Mary ^b   Wells, Kevin ^b   Young, Kenneth C ^a,b  

^a ROYAL SURREY COUNTY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

mammography; noise power spectra; simulation

Indexed keywords

DISEASES; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEMS; MAMMOGRAPHY; POWER SPECTRUM; X RAY APPARATUS; X RAY DETECTORS; X RAYS;

ANTI-SCATTER GRIDS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGING CHARACTERISTICS; MAMMOGRAPHIC IMAGES; NOISE-POWER SPECTRA; QUADRATIC POLYNOMIAL; RADIOLOGICAL IMAGES; SIMULATION;

IMAGE ACQUISITION;

EID: 84861622295     PISSN: 00942405     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1118/1.4704525     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. B. Lazzari, G. Belli, C. Gori, and T. M. Rosselli Del, Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography., Med. Phys. 34, 2730-2743 (2007). 10.1118/1.2742498 (Pubitemid 47019794)
2. 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 (Pubitemid 46355654)
3. 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
4. E. D. Pisano, C. Gatsonis, E. Hendrick, M. Yaffe, J. K. Baum, S. Acharyya, E. F. Conant, L. L. Fajardo, L. Bassett, and C. D'Orsi, Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening, N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 1773-1783 (2005). 10.1056/NEJMoa052911 (Pubitemid 41549889)
5. P. Skaane and A. Skjennald, 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 232, 197-204 (2004). 10.1148/radiol.2321031624 (Pubitemid 38787838)
6. R. S. Saunders, Jr., J. A. Baker, D. M. Delong, J. P. Johnson, and E. Samei, Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance., Med. Phys. 34, 3971-3981 (2007). 10.1118/1.2776253 (Pubitemid 47482898)
7. M. Ruschin, P. Timberg, M. Båth, B. Hemdal, T. Svahn, R. S. Saunders, E. Samei, I. Andersson, S. Mattsson, and D. P. Chakraborty, Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: Free response human observer studies., Med. Phys. 34, 5618-5626 (2007). 10.1118/1.2405324 (Pubitemid 46185118)
8. R. Van Metter, L. P. L. Dillon, K. E. Huff, and M. Rabbani, Computer simulation of radiographic screen-film images., Proc. SPIE 626, 82-99 (1986).
9. W. J. Veldkamp, L. J. Kroft, J. P. van Delft, and J. Geleijns, A technique for simulating the effect of dose reduction on image quality in digital chest radiography, J. Digit Imaging 22, 114-125 (2009). 10.1007/s10278-008-9104-5
10. R. S. Saunders, Jr., and E. Samei, A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images., Med. Phys. 30, 3006-3017 (2003). 10.1118/1.1621870 (Pubitemid 37444311)
11. A. Svalkvist and M. Båth, Simulation of dose reduction in tomosynthesis., Med. Phys. 37, 258-269 (2010). 10.1118/1.3273064
12. O. Treiber, F. Wanninger, H. Fuhr, W. Panzer, D. Regulla, and G. Winkler, An adaptive algorithm for the detection of microcalcifications in simulated low-dose mammography., Phys. Med. Biol. 48, 449-466 (2003). 10.1088/0031-9155/ 48/4/303 (Pubitemid 36322038)
13. A. Workman, Simulation of digital mammography., Proc. SPIE 5745, 933-942 (2005). 10.1117/12.595082 (Pubitemid 41146301)
14. M. Yip, F. Zanca, A. Mackenzie, A. Workman, K. Young, D. Dance, H. Bosmans, E. Lewis, and K. Wells, Validation of a simulated dose reduction methodology using digital mammography CDMAM images and mastectomy images., IWDM 2010, LNCS (Springer, Heidelberg, 2010), Vol. 6136, pp. 78-85.
15. K. Smans, D. Vandenbroucke, H. Pauwels, L. Struelens, F. Vanhavere, and H. Bosmans, Validation of an image simulation technique for two computed radiography systems: An application to neonatal imaging., Med. Phys. 37, 2092-2100 (2010). 10.1118/1.3377772
16. 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 (Pubitemid 47175801)
17. D. S. Evans, A. Workman, and M. Payne, A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography., Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 117-135 (2002). 10.1088/0031-9155/47/1/309 (Pubitemid 34071352)
18. A. Workman and A. R. Cowen, Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography., Phys. Med. Biol. 38, 1789-1808 (1993). 10.1088/0031-9155/38/12/007 (Pubitemid 24026128)
19. M. Båth, M. Håkansson, A. Tingberg, and L. G. Månsson, Method of simulating dose reduction for digital radiographic systems., Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114, 253-259 (2005). 10.1093/rpd/nch540 (Pubitemid 40883690)
20. IEC, Medical electrical equipment-Characteristics of digital x-ray imaging devices Part 1-2: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency-Detectors used in mammography., IEC 62220-1-2 (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007).
21. A. D. Maidment and M. Albert, Conditioning data for calculation of the modulation transfer function., Med. Phys. 30, 248-253 (2003). 10.1118/1.1534111 (Pubitemid 36222860)
22. N. W. Marshall, Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system., Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 5655-5673 (2006). 10.1088/0031-9155/51/21/018 (Pubitemid 44773338)
23. A. K. Carton, R. Acciavatti, J. Kuo, and A. D. Maidment, The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector., Med. Phys. 36, 920-928 (2009). 10.1118/1.3077922
24. J. A. Seibert, O. Nalcioglu, and W. W. Roeck, Characterization of the veiling glare PSF in x-ray image intensified fluoroscopy., Med. Phys. 11, 172-179 (1984). 10.1118/1.595494 (Pubitemid 14107163)
25. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, edited by, N. Perry, M. Broeders, C. de Wolf, S. Törnberg, R. Holland, L. von Karsa, and, E. Puthaar, (European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2006).
26. K. C. Young, A. Alsager, J. M. Oduko, H. Bosmans, B. Verbrugge, T. Geertse, and R. van Engen, Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems., Proc. SPIE 6913, 69131C (2008). 10.1117/12.770571 (Pubitemid 351643997)
27. W. Zhao and J. A. Rowlands, Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: Theoretical analysis of detective quantum efficiency., Med. Phys. 24, 1819-1833 (1997). 10.1118/1.598097 (Pubitemid 28013497)
28. A. Mackenzie, A. Workman, D. R. Dance, M. Yip, K. Wells, and K. C. Young, Validation of a method to convert an image to appear as if acquired using a different digital detector., Proc. SPIE 7961, 79614F (2011). 10.1117/12.878756
29. G. Hajdok and I. A. Cunningham, Penalty on the detective quantum efficiency from off-axis incident x rays., Proc. SPIE 5368, 109-118 (2004). 10.1117/12.535933
30. K. Bliznakova, Z. Bliznakov, V. Bravou, Z. Kolitsi, and N. Pallikarakis, A three-dimensional breast software phantom for mammography simulation., Phys. Med. Biol. 48, 3699-3719 (2003). 10.1088/0031-9155/48/22/006 (Pubitemid 37483476)
31. P. R. Bakic, M. Albert, D. Brzakovic, and A. D. Maidment, Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. I. Breast tissue model and image acquisition simulation., Med. Phys. 29, 2131-2139 (2002). 10.1118/1.1501143
32. www.euref.org.