Comparison of a-Si:H/CsI flat-panel digital imaging systems with CR-and CCD-based systems: image quality measurements

Liu, Xinming; Shaw, Chris C.; Rong, Xiujiang; Lemacks, Michael R.

doi:10.1117/12.430951

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These digital detectors are based on computed radiography systems (CR), [17][18][19][20][21] charge-coupled devices (CCD), [20][21][22][23][24][25] or amorphous silicon flat-panel systems (FP). 20,21,[26][27][28][29] Computed radiography with storage phosphors was developed in the early 1980's and has been widely used in clinical practice. 3,30 A CR system consists of an image plate (IP) contained in a cassette, compatible with screen/film mammography systems, and an image reader.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visibility of simulated microcalcifications—A hardcopy‐based comparison of three mammographic systemsa)

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Full-field digital mammography systems are currently available for clinical use. These digital systems offer improved image quality, flexible image processing, display, storage, retrieval, and transmission. These systems employ a variety of different x-ray detectors based on storage phosphors (in computed radiography), charge-coupled devices (CCDs), or amorphous silicon flat panels (FPs). The objective of this study is to compare three different types of mammographic detectors: screenfilm (SF) combination, a CsI-based FP detector, a CCD and x-ray phosphor-based detector for their performance in detection of simulated microcalcifications. Microcalcifications (MCs) were simulated with calcium carbonate grains of various sizes (90-355 microm). They were overlapped with a slab of simulated 50% adipose/50% glandular breast tissue for a uniform background or an anthropomorphic breast phantom for a tissue structure background. Images of the phantoms, acquired with and without magnification, were reviewed by mammographers, physicists, and students. A five-point confidence level rating was given for each MC reviewed. Average ratings from the mammographers were used to compare the performances of the three imaging systems, various MC size groups, and two magnification modes. The results indicate that with uniform background and no magnification, the FP system performed the best while the SF system did slightly better than the CCD system. With magnification added, all detection tasks were improved except for the smallest and largest one or two size groups. In particular, detection in the SF and CCD images was significantly improved over that in the FP images. With tissue structure background and no magnification, the FP system was outperformed by the SF and the CCD systems. With magnification added, the performance of the FP and the CCD systems was improved significantly. With this improvement, the SF and FP systems were outperformed by the CCD system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visibility of simulated microcalcifications—A hardcopy‐based comparison of three mammographic systemsa)

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The physical characteristics and performance of this detector have been previously investigated and reported. 3,6,7 The specifications of the slot scanning FFDM system investigated in this study are also listed in Table 1. It employs a CsI(Tl) scintillator coupled to a time-delay integration CCD through fiber-optic tapers for efficient x-ray absorption and integration of the slot scanning exposures.…”

Section: Digital Mammography Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several x-ray detectors have been developed and used in commercial digital mammography systems. They include the storage phosphor plate or computed radiography (CR) imaging plates, [1][2][3] charge-coupled device (CCD) and scintillator based detectors, [3][4][5] and cesium iodide (CsI) or amorphous selenium (a-Se) based flat-panel (FP) detectors. 5-7…”

Section: Digital Mammographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Slot scanning versus antiscatter grid in digital mammography: comparison of low-contrast performance using contrast-detail measurement

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Slot scanning imaging techniques allow for effective scatter rejection without attenuating primary x-rays. The use of these techniques should generate better image quality for the same mean glandular dose (MGD) or a similar image quality for a lower MGD as compared to imaging techniques using an anti-scatter grid. In this study, we compared a slot scanning digital mammography system (SenoScan, Fisher Imaging Systems, Denver, CO) to a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system used in conjunction with a 5:1 anti-scatter grid (SenoGraphe 2000D, General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI). Images of a contrast-detail phantom (University Hospital Nijmegen, The Netherlands) were reviewed to measure the contrast-detail curves for both systems. These curves were measured at 100%, 71%, 49% and 33% of the reference mean glandular dose (MGD), as determined by photo-timing, for the Fisher system and 100% for the GE system. Soft-copy reading was performed on review workstations provided by the manufacturers. The correct observation ratios (CORs) were also computed and used to compare the performance of the two systems. The results showed that, based on the contrast-detail curves, the performance of the Fisher images, acquired at 100% and 71% of the reference MGD, was comparable to the GE images at 100% of the reference MGD. The CORs for Fisher images were 0.463 and 0.444 at 100% and 71% of the reference MGD, respectively, compared to 0.453 for the GE images at 100% of the reference MGD.

show abstract

“…The measurements of the modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of the FP-based and CCD-based systems used in this study were performed in our laboratory previously and reported by Liu et al (2001). The specifications are listed in table 1.…”

Section: Imaging Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, screen-film (SF) mammography is still the primary technique used for screening and diagnostic mammography in the United States. In recent years, various digital detectors Rowlands 1997,Pisano et al 2000) have been developed and commercialized for mammography, including computed radiography (CR) systems (Cowen et al 1997,Jenning et al 1996,Kimme-Smith et al 1989,Liu et al 2001,Rong et al 2002, charge-coupled device (CCD)-based systems (Evans et al 2002,Liu et al 2001,Rong et al 2002,Rosen et al 1997,Tesic et al 1999,Vedantham et al 2000b and amorphous silicon flat-panel (FP)-based systems (Liu et al 2001,Mainprize et al 1999,Rong et al 2002,Suryanarayanan et al 2002,Vedantham et al 2000a. These digital detectors use different techniques to improve detective quantum efficiency and to overcome the limitations of conventional SF mammography.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of simulated microcalcifications on mammograms using hardcopy images

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare mammography systems based on three different detectors-a conventional screen-film (SF) combination, an a-Si/CsI flat-panel (FP)-based detector, and a charge-coupled device (CCD)-based x-ray phosphor-based detector-for their performance in detecting simulated microcalcifications (MCs). 112-150 μm calcium carbonate grains were used to simulate MCs and were overlapped with a slab phantom of simulated 50% adipose/50% glandular breast tissue-equivalent material referred to as the uniform background. For the tissue structure background, 200-250 μm calcium carbonate grains were used and overlapped with an anthropomorphic breast phantom. All MC phantom images were acquired with and without magnification (1.8X). The hardcopy images were reviewed by five mammographers. A five-point confidence level rating was used to score each detection task. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed, and the areas under the ROC curves (A z s) were used to compare the performances of the three mammography systems under various conditions. The results showed that, with a uniform background and contact images, the FP-based system performed significantly better than the SF and the CCD-based systems. For magnified images with a uniform background, the SF and the FP-based systems performed equally well and significantly better than the CCD-based system. With tissue structure background and contact images, the SF system performed significantly better than the FP and the CCD-based systems. With magnified images and a tissue structure background, the SF and the CCD-based systems performed equally well and significantly better than the FP-based system. In the detection of MCs in the fibroglandular and the heterogeneously dense regions, no significant differences were found except that the SF system performed significantly better than the CCD-based system in the fibroglandular regions for the contact images.

show abstract

Comparison of a-Si:H/CsI flat-panel digital imaging systems with CR-and CCD-based systems: image quality measurements

Cited by 8 publications

References 17 publications

Visibility of simulated microcalcifications—A hardcopy‐based comparison of three mammographic systemsa)

Visibility of simulated microcalcifications—A hardcopy‐based comparison of three mammographic systemsa)

Slot scanning versus antiscatter grid in digital mammography: comparison of low-contrast performance using contrast-detail measurement

Receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of simulated microcalcifications on mammograms using hardcopy images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About