Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Objective assessment of task performance: a comparison of two FFDM detectors using an anthropomorphic breast phantom

Objective assessment of task performance: a comparison of two FFDM detectors using an... Abstract.Current digital mammography systems primarily employ one of two types of detectors: indirect conversion, typically using a cesium-iodine scintillator integrated with an amorphous silicon photodiode matrix, or direct conversion, using a photoconductive layer of amorphous selenium (a-Se) combined with thin-film transistor array. The goal of this study was to evaluate a methodology for objectively assessing image quality to compare human observer task performance in detecting microcalcification clusters and extended mass-like lesions achieved with different detector types. The proposed assessment methodology uses a novel anthropomorphic breast phantom fabricated with ink-jet printing. In addition to human observer detection performance, standard linear metrics such as modulation transfer function, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) were also measured to assess image quality. An Analogic Anrad AXS-2430 a-Se detector used in a commercial FFDM/DBT system and a Teledyne Dalsa Xineos-2329 with CMOS pixel readout were evaluated and compared. The DQE of each detector was similar over a range of exposures. Similar task performance in detecting microcalcifications and masses was observed between the two detectors over a range of clinically applicable dose levels, with some perplexing differences in the detection of microcalcifications at the lowest dose measurement. The evaluation approach presented seems promising as a new technique for objective assessment of breast imaging technology. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Medical Imaging SPIE

Objective assessment of task performance: a comparison of two FFDM detectors using an anthropomorphic breast phantom

Loading next page...
 
/lp/spie/objective-assessment-of-task-performance-a-comparison-of-two-ffdm-9koV0lncrC
Publisher
SPIE
Copyright
© 2019 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)
ISSN
2329-4302
eISSN
2329-4310
DOI
10.1117/1.JMI.6.4.043503
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract.Current digital mammography systems primarily employ one of two types of detectors: indirect conversion, typically using a cesium-iodine scintillator integrated with an amorphous silicon photodiode matrix, or direct conversion, using a photoconductive layer of amorphous selenium (a-Se) combined with thin-film transistor array. The goal of this study was to evaluate a methodology for objectively assessing image quality to compare human observer task performance in detecting microcalcification clusters and extended mass-like lesions achieved with different detector types. The proposed assessment methodology uses a novel anthropomorphic breast phantom fabricated with ink-jet printing. In addition to human observer detection performance, standard linear metrics such as modulation transfer function, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) were also measured to assess image quality. An Analogic Anrad AXS-2430 a-Se detector used in a commercial FFDM/DBT system and a Teledyne Dalsa Xineos-2329 with CMOS pixel readout were evaluated and compared. The DQE of each detector was similar over a range of exposures. Similar task performance in detecting microcalcifications and masses was observed between the two detectors over a range of clinically applicable dose levels, with some perplexing differences in the detection of microcalcifications at the lowest dose measurement. The evaluation approach presented seems promising as a new technique for objective assessment of breast imaging technology.

Journal

Journal of Medical ImagingSPIE

Published: Oct 1, 2019

Keywords: anthropomorphic breast phantom; FFDM detector; detective quantum efficiency; microcalcification detection; lesion detection

There are no references for this article.