Literature DB >> 19424702

A novel method for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation of digital mammography detectors.

P Baldelli1, N Phelan, G Egan.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test a new, simple method of evaluating the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) over the entire image field of a digital detector and to compare different mammography systems. Images were taken under clinical exposure conditions for a range of simulated breast thicknesses using poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). At each PMMA thickness, a second image which included an additional 0.2-mm Al sheet was also acquired. Image processing software was used to calculate the CNR in multiple regions of interest (ROI) covering the entire area of the detector in order to obtain a 'CNR image'. Five detector types were evaluated, two CsI-alphaSi (GE Healthcare) flat panel systems, one alphaSe (Hologic) flat panel system and a two generations of scanning photon counting digital detectors (Sectra). Flat panel detectors exhibit better CNR uniformity compared with the first-generation scanning photon counting detector in terms of mean pixel value variation. However, significant improvement in CNR uniformity was observed for the next-generation scanning detector. The method proposed produces a map of the CNR and a measurement of uniformity throughout the entire image field of the detector. The application of this method enables quality control measurement of individual detectors and a comparison of detectors using different technologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19424702     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1409-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  9 in total

1.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  D R Dance; A K Thilander; M Sandborg; C L Skinner; I A Castellano; G A Carlsson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results.

Authors:  J M Boone; K K Lindfors; V N Cooper; J A Seibert
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Scatter/primary in mammography: Monte Carlo validation.

Authors:  J M Boone; V N Cooper
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol.

Authors:  D R Dance; C L Skinner; K C Young; J R Beckett; C J Kotre
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.

Authors:  Thomas K Nishino; Xizeng Wu; Raleigh F Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  H Delis; G Spyrou; L Costaridou; G Tzanakos; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Mammography and breast cancer: the new era.

Authors:  L Tabár; P B Dean
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.561

8.  SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: I. A practical approach based on statistical decision theory.

Authors:  M J Tapiovaara; R F Wagner
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Screening for breast cancer and mortality reduction among women 40-49 years of age.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1994-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

  9 in total
  6 in total

1.  Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  E Keavey; N Phelan; A M O'Connell; F Flanagan; A O'Doherty; A Larke; A M Connors
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Radiation dose reduction in temporal bone CT with iterative reconstruction technique.

Authors:  Y T Niu; D Mehta; Z R Zhang; Y X Zhang; Y F Liu; T L Kang; J F Xian; Z C Wang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Association between quantitative and qualitative image features of contrast-enhanced mammography and molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

Authors:  Simin Wang; Zhenxun Wang; Ruimin Li; Chao You; Ning Mao; Tingting Jiang; Zhongyi Wang; Haizhu Xie; Yajia Gu
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-02

4.  Pixelation effect removal from fiber bundle probe based optical coherence tomography imaging.

Authors:  Jae-Ho Han; Junghoon Lee; Jin U Kang
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  Imaging and Dosimetric Study on Direct Flat-Panel Detector-Based Digital Mammography System.

Authors:  Reena Sharma; S D Sharma; P S Sarkar; D Datta
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

6.  Comparison of new and established full-field digital mammography systems in diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Eun Sook Ko; Boo-Kyung Han; Sun Mi Kim; Eun Young Ko; Mijung Jang; Chae Yeon Lyou; Jung Min Chang; Woo Kyung Moon; Rock Bum Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 3.500

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.