OBJECTIVE: To compare between the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom and digital mammography accreditation phantom in assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each week throughout the 42-week study, we obtained phantom images using both the ACR accreditation phantom and the digital mammography accreditation phantom, and a total of 42 pairs of images were included in this study. We assessed the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in each phantom image. A radiologist drew a square-shaped region of interest on the phantom and then the mean value of the SNR and the standard deviation were automatically provided on a monitor. SNR was calculated by an equation, measured mean value of SNR-constant coefficient of FFDM/standard deviation. Two breast radiologists scored visible objects (fibers, specks, and masses) with soft-copy images and calculated the visible rate (number of visible objects/total number of objects). We compared SNR and the visible rate of objects between the two phantoms and calculated the k-coefficient for interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The SNR of the ACR accreditation phantom ranged from 42.0 to 52.9 (Mean, 47.3 ± 2.79) and that of Digital Phantom ranged from 24.8 to 54.0 (Mean, 44.1 ± 9.93) (p = 0.028). The visible rates of all three types of objects were much higher in the ACR accreditation phantom than those in the digital mammography accreditation phantom (p < 0.05). Interobserver agreement for visible rates of objects on phantom images was fair to moderate agreement (k-coefficients: 0.34-0.57). CONCLUSION: The ACR accreditation phantom is superior to the digital mammography accreditation phantom in terms of SNR and visibility of phantom objects. Thus, ACR accreditation phantom appears to be satisfactory for assessing the image quality in FFDM.
OBJECTIVE: To compare between the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom and digital mammography accreditation phantom in assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each week throughout the 42-week study, we obtained phantom images using both the ACR accreditation phantom and the digital mammography accreditation phantom, and a total of 42 pairs of images were included in this study. We assessed the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in each phantom image. A radiologist drew a square-shaped region of interest on the phantom and then the mean value of the SNR and the standard deviation were automatically provided on a monitor. SNR was calculated by an equation, measured mean value of SNR-constant coefficient of FFDM/standard deviation. Two breast radiologists scored visible objects (fibers, specks, and masses) with soft-copy images and calculated the visible rate (number of visible objects/total number of objects). We compared SNR and the visible rate of objects between the two phantoms and calculated the k-coefficient for interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The SNR of the ACR accreditation phantom ranged from 42.0 to 52.9 (Mean, 47.3 ± 2.79) and that of Digital Phantom ranged from 24.8 to 54.0 (Mean, 44.1 ± 9.93) (p = 0.028). The visible rates of all three types of objects were much higher in the ACR accreditation phantom than those in the digital mammography accreditation phantom (p < 0.05). Interobserver agreement for visible rates of objects on phantom images was fair to moderate agreement (k-coefficients: 0.34-0.57). CONCLUSION: The ACR accreditation phantom is superior to the digital mammography accreditation phantom in terms of SNR and visibility of phantom objects. Thus, ACR accreditation phantom appears to be satisfactory for assessing the image quality in FFDM.
Authors: Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Limin X Clegg; Elizabeth Ward; Lynn A G Ries; Xiaocheng Wu; Patricia M Jamison; Phyllis A Wingo; Holly L Howe; Robert N Anderson; Brenda K Edwards Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Kyunghwa Han; Yu Sub Sung; Mi Sun Chung; Hyun Jung Koo; Hee Mang Yoon; Young Jun Choi; Seung Soo Lee; Kyung Won Kim; Youngbin Shin; Suah An; Hyo-Min Cho; Seong Ho Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.500