Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, 12:12 | Cite as

The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images

  • Dev P. Chakraborty
Article

Abstract

Computer Analysis of Mammography Phantom Images (CAMPI) is a method for making quantitative measurements of image quality. This article reports on a recent application of this method to a prototype full-field digital mammography (FFDM) machine. Images of a modified ACR phantom were acquired on the General Electric Diagnostic Molybdenum Rhodium (GE-DMR) FFDM machine at a number of x-ray techniques, both with and without the scatter reduction grid. The techniques were chosen so that one had sets of grid and non-grid images with matched doses (200 mrads) and matched gray-scale values (1500). A third set was acquired at constant 26 kVp and varying mAs for both grid conditions. Analyses of the images yielded signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR), contrast and noise corresponding to each target object, and a nonuniformity measure. The results showed that under conditions of equal gray-scale value the grid images were markedly superior, albeit at higher doses than the non-grid images. Under constant dose conditions, the non-grid images were slightly superior in SNR (7%) but markedly less uniform (60%). Overall, the grid images had substantially greater contrast and superior image uniformity. These conclusions applied to the whole kVp range studied for the Mo-Mo target filter combination and 4 cm of breast equivalent material of average composition. These results suggest that use of the non-grid technique in digital mammography with the GE-DMR-FFDM unit, is presently not warranted. With improved uniformity correction procedure, this conclusion would change and one should be able to realize a 14% reduction in patient dose at the same SNR by using a non-grid technique.

Key words

digital mammography breast imaging technique optimization antiscatter grid 

References

  1. 1.
    Feig SA, Yaffe MJ: Current Status of Digital Mammography. Semin Ultrasound, CT and MR 17:424–43, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eckert MP, Chakraborty DP: Quantitative Analysis of Phantom Images in Mammography. Proc SPIE 2167:887–899, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chakraborty DP, Eckert MP: Quantitative versus Subjective Evaluation of Mammography Phantom Images. Med Phys 22:133–143, 1995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chakraborty DP: Physical measures of image quality in mammography. Proc SPIE 2708:179–193, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakraborty DP: Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI). Proc SPIE 3032:292–299, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chakraborty DP: Computer Analysis of Mammography Phantom Images (CAMPI): An Application to the Measurement of Microcalcification Image Quality of Directly Acquired Digital Images. Med Phys 24:1269–1277, 1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chakraborty DP, Fatouros PP: An Application of CAMPI Methodology: Comparison of two Digital Biopsy Machines. Proc SPIE 3336:618–628, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Motz JW, Danos M: Image information content and patient exposure. Med Phys 5:8–22, 1978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muntz EP, Welkowsky, Kaegl E, et al: Optimization of electrostatic imaging systems for minimum patient dose or minimum exposure in mammography. Radiology 127:517–523, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muntz EP, Jafroudi H, Jennings R, et al: An approach to specifying a minimum dose system for mammography using multiparameter optimization techniques. Med Phys 12:5–12, 1985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muntz EP: Analysis of the significance of scattered radiation in reduced dose mammography, including magnification effects, scatter suppression, and focal spot and detector blurring. Med Phys 6:110–117, 1979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jennings RJ, Quinn PW, Gagne RM, et al: Evaluation of x-ray sources for mammography. SPIE 1896:259–268, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams MB, Fajardo LL: Digital Mammography: Performance considerations and current detector designs. Acad Radiol 3:429–37, 1996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu H, Fajardo LL, Barrett JR, et al: Contrast-detail detectability analysis: Comparison of a digital spot mammography system and an analog screen-film mammography system. Acad Radiol 4:197–203, 1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Court LE, Speller R: A multiparameter optimization of digital mammography: Phys Med Biol 40:1841–1861, 1995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hendrick RE, Bassett L, Botsco MA, et al: Mammography Quality Control Manual. American Cancer Society, American College of Radiology, 1994 (revised ed.)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM: Spectral Dependence of Glandular Tissue Dose in Screen-Film Mammography. Radiology 179:143–148, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gingold EL, Wu X, Barnes GT: Contrast and Dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh and Rh-Rh Target-Filter Combinations in Mammography. Radiology 195:639–644, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chakraborty DP: Comparison of computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI) with perceived image quality of phantom targets in the ACR phantom. Proc SPIE 3036:160–167, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fahrig R, Yaffe MJ: A model for optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography. Med Phys 21:1463–1471, 1994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bushberg JT, Seibert A, Leidholdt EM, et al: The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. Baltimore, MD, Williams and Wilkins, 1994Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seibert J, Boone JM: X-ray scatter removal by deconvolution. Med Phys 15:567–575, 1988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Molloi SY, Mistretta C: Scatter-glare corrections in quantitative dual-energy fluoroscopy. Med Phys 15:289–297, 1988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner RW, Barnes GT, Askins BS: Effect of reduced scatter on radiographic information content and patient exposure: A quantitative demonstration. Med Phys 7:13–18, 1980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barnes GT, Frey GD. Screen Film Mammography: Imaging Considerations and Medical Physics Responsibilities. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin, 1991, pp 115–134Google Scholar

Copyright information

© W.B. Saunders Company 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dev P. Chakraborty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations