Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis

Stefano Rivetti, Nico Lanconelli, Renato Campanini, Marco Bertolini, Gianni Borasi, Andrea Nitrosi, Claudio Danielli, Lidia Angelini, Stefania Maggi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to perform a complete evaluation of three pieces of clinical digital mammography equipment. Image quality was assessed by performing physical characterization and contrast-detail (CD) analysis. We considered three different FFDM systems: a computed radiography unit (Fuji "FCR 5000 MA") and two flat-panel units, the indirect conversion a-Si based GE "Senographe 2000D" and the direct conversion a-Se based IMS "Giotto Image MD." The physical characterization was estimated by measuring the MTF, NNPS, and DQE of the detectors with no antiscatter grid and over the clinical range of exposures. The CD analysis was performed using a CDMAM 3.4 phantom and custom software designed for automatic computation of the contrast-detail curves. The physical characterization of the three digital systems confirms the excellent MTF properties of the direct conversion flat-panel detector (FPD). We performed a relative standard deviation (RSD) analysis, for investigating the different components of the noise presented by the three systems. It turned out that the two FPDs show a significant additive component, whereas for the CR system the statistical noise is dominant. The multiplicative factor is a minor constituent for all the systems. The two FPDs demonstrate better DQE, with respect to the CR system, for exposures higher than 70 μGy. The CD analysis indicated that the three systems are not statistically different for detail objects with a diameter greater than 0.3 mm. However, the IMS system showed a statistically significant different response for details smaller than 0.3 mm. In this case, the poor response of the a-Se detector could be attributed to its high-frequency noise characteristics, since its MTF, NEQ, and DQE are not inferior to those of the other systems. The CD results were independent of exposure level, within the investigated clinical range. We observed slight variations in the CD results, due to the changes in the visualization parameters (window/level and magnification factor). This suggests that radiologists would benefit from viewing images using varied window/level and magnification.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4198-4209
Number of pages12
JournalMedical Physics
Volume33
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Noise
Mammography
Radiography
Software
Equipment and Supplies
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Contrast-detail
  • Digital mammography
  • DQE
  • Image quality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics

Cite this

Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. / Rivetti, Stefano; Lanconelli, Nico; Campanini, Renato; Bertolini, Marco; Borasi, Gianni; Nitrosi, Andrea; Danielli, Claudio; Angelini, Lidia; Maggi, Stefania.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 33, No. 11, 2006, p. 4198-4209.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rivetti, S, Lanconelli, N, Campanini, R, Bertolini, M, Borasi, G, Nitrosi, A, Danielli, C, Angelini, L & Maggi, S 2006, 'Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis', Medical Physics, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 4198-4209. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2358195
Rivetti, Stefano ; Lanconelli, Nico ; Campanini, Renato ; Bertolini, Marco ; Borasi, Gianni ; Nitrosi, Andrea ; Danielli, Claudio ; Angelini, Lidia ; Maggi, Stefania. / Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. In: Medical Physics. 2006 ; Vol. 33, No. 11. pp. 4198-4209.
@article{02270b4659c44ed2a445f52d3d56a3b4,
title = "Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to perform a complete evaluation of three pieces of clinical digital mammography equipment. Image quality was assessed by performing physical characterization and contrast-detail (CD) analysis. We considered three different FFDM systems: a computed radiography unit (Fuji {"}FCR 5000 MA{"}) and two flat-panel units, the indirect conversion a-Si based GE {"}Senographe 2000D{"} and the direct conversion a-Se based IMS {"}Giotto Image MD.{"} The physical characterization was estimated by measuring the MTF, NNPS, and DQE of the detectors with no antiscatter grid and over the clinical range of exposures. The CD analysis was performed using a CDMAM 3.4 phantom and custom software designed for automatic computation of the contrast-detail curves. The physical characterization of the three digital systems confirms the excellent MTF properties of the direct conversion flat-panel detector (FPD). We performed a relative standard deviation (RSD) analysis, for investigating the different components of the noise presented by the three systems. It turned out that the two FPDs show a significant additive component, whereas for the CR system the statistical noise is dominant. The multiplicative factor is a minor constituent for all the systems. The two FPDs demonstrate better DQE, with respect to the CR system, for exposures higher than 70 μGy. The CD analysis indicated that the three systems are not statistically different for detail objects with a diameter greater than 0.3 mm. However, the IMS system showed a statistically significant different response for details smaller than 0.3 mm. In this case, the poor response of the a-Se detector could be attributed to its high-frequency noise characteristics, since its MTF, NEQ, and DQE are not inferior to those of the other systems. The CD results were independent of exposure level, within the investigated clinical range. We observed slight variations in the CD results, due to the changes in the visualization parameters (window/level and magnification factor). This suggests that radiologists would benefit from viewing images using varied window/level and magnification.",
keywords = "Contrast-detail, Digital mammography, DQE, Image quality",
author = "Stefano Rivetti and Nico Lanconelli and Renato Campanini and Marco Bertolini and Gianni Borasi and Andrea Nitrosi and Claudio Danielli and Lidia Angelini and Stefania Maggi",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1118/1.2358195",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "4198--4209",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis

AU - Rivetti, Stefano

AU - Lanconelli, Nico

AU - Campanini, Renato

AU - Bertolini, Marco

AU - Borasi, Gianni

AU - Nitrosi, Andrea

AU - Danielli, Claudio

AU - Angelini, Lidia

AU - Maggi, Stefania

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - The purpose of this study was to perform a complete evaluation of three pieces of clinical digital mammography equipment. Image quality was assessed by performing physical characterization and contrast-detail (CD) analysis. We considered three different FFDM systems: a computed radiography unit (Fuji "FCR 5000 MA") and two flat-panel units, the indirect conversion a-Si based GE "Senographe 2000D" and the direct conversion a-Se based IMS "Giotto Image MD." The physical characterization was estimated by measuring the MTF, NNPS, and DQE of the detectors with no antiscatter grid and over the clinical range of exposures. The CD analysis was performed using a CDMAM 3.4 phantom and custom software designed for automatic computation of the contrast-detail curves. The physical characterization of the three digital systems confirms the excellent MTF properties of the direct conversion flat-panel detector (FPD). We performed a relative standard deviation (RSD) analysis, for investigating the different components of the noise presented by the three systems. It turned out that the two FPDs show a significant additive component, whereas for the CR system the statistical noise is dominant. The multiplicative factor is a minor constituent for all the systems. The two FPDs demonstrate better DQE, with respect to the CR system, for exposures higher than 70 μGy. The CD analysis indicated that the three systems are not statistically different for detail objects with a diameter greater than 0.3 mm. However, the IMS system showed a statistically significant different response for details smaller than 0.3 mm. In this case, the poor response of the a-Se detector could be attributed to its high-frequency noise characteristics, since its MTF, NEQ, and DQE are not inferior to those of the other systems. The CD results were independent of exposure level, within the investigated clinical range. We observed slight variations in the CD results, due to the changes in the visualization parameters (window/level and magnification factor). This suggests that radiologists would benefit from viewing images using varied window/level and magnification.

AB - The purpose of this study was to perform a complete evaluation of three pieces of clinical digital mammography equipment. Image quality was assessed by performing physical characterization and contrast-detail (CD) analysis. We considered three different FFDM systems: a computed radiography unit (Fuji "FCR 5000 MA") and two flat-panel units, the indirect conversion a-Si based GE "Senographe 2000D" and the direct conversion a-Se based IMS "Giotto Image MD." The physical characterization was estimated by measuring the MTF, NNPS, and DQE of the detectors with no antiscatter grid and over the clinical range of exposures. The CD analysis was performed using a CDMAM 3.4 phantom and custom software designed for automatic computation of the contrast-detail curves. The physical characterization of the three digital systems confirms the excellent MTF properties of the direct conversion flat-panel detector (FPD). We performed a relative standard deviation (RSD) analysis, for investigating the different components of the noise presented by the three systems. It turned out that the two FPDs show a significant additive component, whereas for the CR system the statistical noise is dominant. The multiplicative factor is a minor constituent for all the systems. The two FPDs demonstrate better DQE, with respect to the CR system, for exposures higher than 70 μGy. The CD analysis indicated that the three systems are not statistically different for detail objects with a diameter greater than 0.3 mm. However, the IMS system showed a statistically significant different response for details smaller than 0.3 mm. In this case, the poor response of the a-Se detector could be attributed to its high-frequency noise characteristics, since its MTF, NEQ, and DQE are not inferior to those of the other systems. The CD results were independent of exposure level, within the investigated clinical range. We observed slight variations in the CD results, due to the changes in the visualization parameters (window/level and magnification factor). This suggests that radiologists would benefit from viewing images using varied window/level and magnification.

KW - Contrast-detail

KW - Digital mammography

KW - DQE

KW - Image quality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750558311&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750558311&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2358195

DO - 10.1118/1.2358195

M3 - Article

C2 - 17153399

AN - SCOPUS:33750558311

VL - 33

SP - 4198

EP - 4209

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 11

ER -