A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems

Monnin, Pascal; Gutiérrez, Daniel; Bulling, S.; Guntern, D.; Verdun, Francis R.

doi:10.1118/1.2432072

Cited by 96 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, when these detectors were introduced, their performance was not optimal and as such their limited spatial resolution reduced their NEQ and DQE [57]. Recent advances in detector design overcome this drawback and result in better performance [56].…”

Section: Hardware Innovationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in Technological Design to Optimize Exposure and Improve Image Quality

Gutiérrez

Zaidi

2013

Radiological Safety and Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multimodality imaging is playing a key role in the clinical management of patients in routine diagnosis, staging, restaging and assessment of response to treatment, surgery and radiation therapy planning of malignant diseases. The complementarity between anatomical (CT and MRI) and functional/molecular (SPECT and PET) imaging modalities is now well recognized and the role of fusion imaging is widely used as a central piece of the general tree of clinical decision making. Moreover, dual-modality imaging technologies including SPECT/CT, PET/CT and nowadays PET/MR represent the leading component of a modern healthcare facility. There have been significant advances in data acquisition along with innovative approaches to image reconstruction and processing with the aim to improve image quality and diagnostic information. However, CT procedures involve relatively high doses to the patient, which triggered many initiatives to reduce the delivered dose particularly in paediatric practice.This chapter discusses the state-of-the-art developments and challenges of multimodality medical imaging technologies and dose reduction strategies. Future opportunities and the challenges limiting their adoption in clinical and research settings will also be addressed.

show abstract

Section: Hardware Innovationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in Technological Design to Optimize Exposure and Improve Image Quality

Gutiérrez

Zaidi

2013

Radiological Safety and Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[8][9][10] The DQE ranges from 35% to 45% and is measured at 18% DQE for (5 mm −1 ). 7,8,[14][15][16] Both the GE Senographe Essential and Senographe DS have the same detector element size (100 μm) but different detector sizes: Senographe Essential, 24 × 30.7 cm 2 and Senographe DS (23 × 19.2 cm 2 ). 8,9,13 The Hologic manufactured "Lorad Selenia" is an FFDM system using a-Se flat panel detectors (Hologic, Inc., Belford, Massachusetts).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,9,13 The Hologic manufactured "Lorad Selenia" is an FFDM system using a-Se flat panel detectors (Hologic, Inc., Belford, Massachusetts). [7][8][9]16 It is equipped with a tungsten (W) anode and a choice of rhodium (Rh) or silver (Ag) filtration. Previous literature reports that the combination of W/Rh is the best option for high performance in terms of contrast and brightness at a lower dose.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mammographic density measurements are not affected by mammography system

Damases¹,

Brennan

McEntee

2015

J. Med. Imag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Mammographic density (MD) is a significant risk factor for breast cancer and has been shown to reduce the sensitivity of mammography screening. Knowledge of a woman's density can be used to predict her risk of developing breast cancer and personalize her imaging pathway. However, measurement of breast density has proven to be troublesome with wide variations in density recorded using radiologists' visual Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS). Several automated methods for assessing breast density have been proposed, each with their own source of measurement error. The use of differing mammographic imaging systems further complicates MD measurement, especially for the same women imaged over time. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether having a mammogram on differing manufacturer's equipment affects a woman's MD measurement. Raw mammographic images were acquired on two mammography imaging systems (General Electric and Hologic) one year apart and processed using VolparaDensity™ to obtain the Volpara Density Grade (VDG) and average volumetric breast density percentage (AvBD%). Visual BIRADS scores were also obtained from 20 expert readers. BIRADS scores for both systems showed strong positive correlation (ρ ¼ 0.904; p < 0.001), while the VDG (ρ ¼ 0.978; p < 0.001) and AvBD% (ρ ¼ 0.973; p < 0.001) showed stronger positive correlations. Substantial agreement was shown between the systems for BIRADS (κ ¼ 0.692; p < 0.001), however, the systems demonstrated an almost perfect agreement for VDG (κ ¼ 0.933; p < 0.001).

show abstract

“…A total of 25 regions were used. The details of the methodology are reported elsewhere (Monnin et al, 2007;Samei & Flynn, 2002).…”

Section: Detective Quantum Efficiency Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%