ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 10-25

  Kanal, Kalpana M ^a   Krupinski, Elizabeth ^b   Berns, Eric A ^c   Geiser, William R ^d   Karellas, Andrew ^e   Mainiero, Martha B ^f   Martin, Melissa C ^g   Patel, Samir B ^h   Rubin, Daniel L ⁱ   Shepard, Jon D ^j   Siegel, Eliot L ^k   Wolfman, Judith A ^l   Mian, Tariq A ^m   Mahoney, Mary C ⁿ   Wyatt, Margaret ^o  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g Therapy Physics Inc   (United States)

^h Radiology Inc   (United States)

ⁱ STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j Fusion Physics LLC   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^l NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^m Medical Radiation Physics Inc   (United States)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^o AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST TUMOR; EDITORIAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RADIOGRAPHY; STANDARD;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 84873058200     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9521-3     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Avrin D, Morin R, Piraino D, et al: Storage, transmission, and retrieval of digital mammography, including recommendaitons on image compression. JACR 3:609-614, 2006
2. Siegel E, Krupinski EA, Samei E, et al: Digital mammography image quality: image display. JACR 3:615-627, 2006
3. Williams MB, Yaffe MJ, Maidment AD, Martin MC, Seibert JA, Pisano ED: Image quality in digital mammography: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol 3:589-608, 2006
4. Krupinski EA, Williams MB, Andriole K, et al: Digital radiography image quality: image processing and display. J Am Coll Radiol 4:389-400, 2007
5. Williams MB, Krupinski EA, Strauss KJ, et al: Digital radiography image quality: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol 4:371-388, 2007
6. Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals. Part 2: Ergonomic Requirements for Flat Panel Displays. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; ISO 13406-2; 2001
7. Medical Imaging: The Assessment of Image Quality. Bethesda, Md: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; ICRU Report 54, 1996
8. Department of Health and Human Services. FDA Mammography Quality Standards, Final Rule.: Federal Register, vol 62, No. 208; Tuesday, 28 October 1997
9. American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Guideline for the Performance of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography. Available at http://www.acr.org/ SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality-safety/guidelines/breast/ Screening-Diagnostic.aspx. Accessed 16 Aug 2011
10. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, et al: Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys 33:719-736, 2006
11. Measurements of Dimensions and Properties of Focal Spots of Diagnostic Tubes. District of Columbia, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; NEMA XR 5; 1992
12. Samei E, Flynn MJ, Reimann DA: A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. Med Phys 25:102-113, 1998
13. Rezentes PS, de Almeida A, Barnes GT: Mammography grid performance. Radiology 210:227-232, 1999
14. Wagner AJ: Contrast and grid performance in mammography. In: Barnes GT, Frey GD Eds. Screen film mammography: Imaging considerations and medical physics responsibilities. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, 1991, pp 115-134
15. Barnes GT, Brezovich IA: The intensity of scattered radiation in mammography. Radiology 126:243-247, 1978
16. Barnes GT, Brezovick IA: Contrast: effect of scattered radaition. In: Logan WW Ed. Breast carcinoma: the radiologists expanded role. Wiley, New York, 1977, pp 73-81
17. Barnes GT: Radiographic mottle: a comprehensive theory. Med Phys 9:656-667, 1982
18. Nishikawa RM, Yaffe MJ: Signal-to-noise properties of mammographic film-screen systems. Med Phys 12:32-39, 1985
19. Swank RK: Absorption and noise in X-ray phosphors. J Appl Phys 44:4199-4203, 1973
20. Bunch PC, Huff KE, Van Metter R: Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a radiographic screen-film combination. J Opt Soc Am A 4:902-909, 1987
21. Rossmann K: Effect of quantum mottle and modulation transfer on the measurement of radiographic image quality. In: Thomas CC, Moseley RD, Rust JH, Eds. Diagnostic Radiologic Instrumentation. Springfield, MO, 1965, p 350
22. Maidment AD, Yaffe MJ: Analysis of the spatial-frequency-dependent DQE of optically coupled digital mammography detectors. Med Phys 21:721-729, 1993
23. Wagner RF: Physical performance and diagnostic imaging modalities. Acad Radiol 1:69, 1999
24. Yaffe MJ, Nishikawa RM: X-ray imaging concepts: noise, SNR, and DQE. In: Seibert JA, Barnes GT, Gould RG Eds. Specification, acceptance testing and quality control of diagnostic X-ray imaging equipment. American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, 1994, pp 109-144
25. Critten JP, Emde KA, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ: Digital mammography image correction and evaluation. In: Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, Eds. Digital Mammography >96: Excerpta Medica International Congress Series; 1996, pp 1119-1455
26. Badano A, Flynn MJ, Kanicki J: High-fidelity medical imaging displays. SPIE Press, Bellingham, 2004
27. Badano A, Flynn MJ, Martin S, Kanicki J: Angular dependence of the luminance and contrast in medical monochrome liquid crystal displays. Med Phys 30:2602-2613, 2003
28. Baker JA, Rosen EL, Crockett MM, Lo JY: Accuracy of segmentation of a commercial computer-aided detection system for mammography. Radiology 235:385-390, 2005
29. Specifications for Medical Diagnostic Imaging Test Pattern for Television Monitors and Hard-Copy Recording Cameras. New York: Society of Motion PIcture and Television Engineers, 1991
30. Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals. Part 3: Visual Display Requirements. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; ISO 9241-3; 1992
31. Flat Panel Display Measurements Standard. Milpitas: Video Electronics Standards Association; Version 1.0; 1998
32. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. Rosslyn: National Electrical Manufacturers, 2001
33. Imaging Quality Assurance in X-Ray Diagnostics, Acceptance Testing for Image Display Devices. Munich, Germany: Deutsches Institute for Normung, 2001
34. Quality Control Manual Template for Manufacturers of Displays and Workstations Devices Labeled for Final Interpretation in Full-Field Digital Mammography. Rosslyn: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; XR 22-2006, 2006
35. Quality Control Manual Template for Manufacturers of Hardcopy Output Devices Labeled for Final Interpretation in Full-Field Digital Mammography. Rosslyn, Va: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; XR 23-2006, 2006
36. Samei E, Wright SL: Viewing angle performance of medical liquid crystal displays. Med Phys 33:645-654, 2006
37. Gray JE, Anderson WF, Shaw CC, Shepard SJ, Zerembra LA, Lin PJ: Multiformat video and laser cameras; history, design consideration, acceptance testing, and quality control. Med Phys 20:427-438, 1993
38. Hendrick RE, Bassett L, Botso MA, et al: The ACR mammography quality control manual. American College of Radiology, Reston, 1999
39. Assessment of Display Performance for Medical Imaging Systems. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; AAPM Report 003; 2005
40. Burgess AE, Kang H: Incomplete skin representation in digital mammograms. Med Phys 31:2834-2838, 2004
41. Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, et al: Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology 232:762-766, 2004
42. Gray JE: Use of the SMPTE test pattern in picture archiving and communication systems. J Digit Imaging 5:54-58, 1992
43. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, et al: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205-1225, 2005
44. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, et al: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, 2005. Task Group 18
45. Haygood TM, Arribas E, Brennan PC, et al: Conspicuity of microcalcifications on digital screening mammograms using varying degrees of monitor zooming. Acad Radiol 16:1509-1517, 2009
46. Kallergi M, Heine JJ, Berman CG, Hersh MR, Romilly AP, Clark RA: Improved interpretation of digitized mammography with wavelet processing: a localization response operating characteristic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:697-703, 2004
47. Kimme-Smith C: New digital mammography systems may require different X-ray spectra and, therefore, more general normalized glandular dose values. Radiology 213:7-10, 1999
48. Kobayashi M: Image Optimization by Dynamic Range Control Processing. Springfield, Va: Society for Imaging Science and Technology; 47th Annual Conference, 1993
49. Lee JS: Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by use of local statistics. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. District of Columbia, DC: IEEE, 1980:13-25
50. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, et al: Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20:1479-1491, 2000
51. Flynn MJ, Badano A: Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices. J Digit Imaging 12:50-59, 1999
52. Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Nafziger J, Lubin J: On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions. Acad Radiol 12:957-964, 2005
53. Roehrig H, Krupinski EA, Furukawa T: Evaluation of a flat CRT monitor for use in radiology. J Digit Imaging 14:142-148, 2001
54. Badano A, Fifadara DH: Goniometric and conoscopic measurements of angular display contrast for one-, three-, five-, and nine-million-pixel medical liquid crystal displays. Med Phys 31:3452-3460, 2004
55. Samei E, Wright SL: Effect of viewing angle response on DICOM compliance of liquid crystal displays. Proc SPIE 5371:170-177, 2004
56. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ: Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781-786, 2001
57. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al: Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:185-190, 2004
58. Zheng B, Swensson RG, Klyn AH, et al: Classification of breast abnormalities under different detection cueing environments. Proc SPIE 5372:211-217, 2004
59. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Bick U, Hamm B: Reduced-dose digital mammography of skin calcifications. AJR 178:473-474, 2002
60. Krupinski EA, Nodine CF, Kundel HL: A perceptually based method for enhancing pulmonary nodule recognition. Invest Radiol 28:289-294, 1993
61. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E: Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study. Br J Radiol 76:478-482, 2003
62. Horii SC, Horii HN, Mun SK, Benson HR, Zeman RK: Environmental designs for reading from imaging work stations: ergonomic and architectural features. J Digit Imaging 2:156-162, 1989
63. Siddiqui KM, Chia S, Knight N, Siegel E: Design and ergonomic considerations for the filmless environment. J Am Coll Radiol 3:456-467, 2006
64. Usability of irreversible image compression in radiological imaging. A position paper by the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Available at http://www.sor.org/news/files/images/fulltext-0.pdf
65. Rockette HE, et al: Relationship of subjective ratings of image quality and observer performance (Proceedings Paper). In: Kundel HL Ed. Medical imaging 1997: image perception. WA SPIE Medical Imaging, Bellingham, 1997, pp 152-159
66. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for the submission of premarket notification for medical imaging management devices. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm073721.pdf. Accessed 12 Jul 2011
67. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) Policy Guidance Help System. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/Guidance/ PolicyGuidanceHelpSystem/default.htm. Accessed 12 Jul 2011
68. Brennan PC, McEntee M, Evanoff M, Phillips P, O'Connor WT, Manning DJ: Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. Am J Roentgenol 188:W177-180, 2007
69. Foos DH, Muka E, Slone RM, et al: JPEG 2000 compression for medical imagery. Proc SPIE 3980:85-96, 2000
70. Good WF, Sumkin JH, Ganott M, et al: Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol 175:1573-1576, 2000
71. Kocsis O, Costaridou L, Varaki L, et al: Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms. Eur Radiol 13:2390-2396, 2003
72. Penedo M, Pearlman WA, Tahoces PG, Souto M, Vidal JJ: Region-based wavelet coding methods for digital mammography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22:1288-1296, 2003
73. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Waldrop SM, D'Orsi CJ: A perceptual evaluation of JPEG 2000 image compression for digital mammography: contrast-detail characteristics. J Digit Imaging 17:64-70, 2004