1. bookVolume 61 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1508-5791
First Published
25 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

The threshold contrast thickness evaluated with different CDMAM phantoms and software

Published Online: 17 Mar 2016
Volume & Issue: Volume 61 (2016) - Issue 1 (March 2016)
Page range: 53 - 59
Received: 18 Jun 2014
Accepted: 17 Aug 2015
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1508-5791
First Published
25 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The image quality in digital mammography is described by specifying the thickness and diameter of disks with threshold visibility. The European Commission recommends the CDMAM phantom as a tool to evaluate threshold contrast visibility in digital mammography [1, 2]. Inaccuracy of the manufacturing process of CDMAM 3.4 phantoms (Artinis Medical System BV), as well as differences between software used to analyze the images, may lead to discrepancies in the evaluation of threshold contrast visibility. The authors of this work used three CDMAM 3.4 phantoms with serial numbers 1669, 1840, and 1841 and two mammography systems of the same manufacturer with an identical types of detectors. The images were analyzed with EUREF software (version 1.5.5 with CDCOM 1.6. exe file) and Artinis software (version 1.2 with CDCOM 1.6. exe file). The differences between the observed thicknesses of the threshold contrast structures, which were caused by differences between the CDMAM 3.4 phantoms, were not reproduced in the same way on two mammography units of the same type. The thickness reported by the Artinis software (version 1.2 with CDCOM 1.6. exe file) was generally greater than the one determined by the EUREF software (version 1.5.5 with CDCOM 1.6. exe file), but the ratio of the results depended on the phantom and diameter of the structure. It was not possible to establish correction factors, which would allow correction of the differences between the results obtained for different CDMAM 3.4 phantoms, or to correct the differences between software. Great care must be taken when results of the tests performed with different CDMAM 3.4 phantoms and with different software application are interpreted.

Keywords

1. European Communities. (2006). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Search in Google Scholar

2. European Communities. (2013). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition Supplements. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Search in Google Scholar

3. Young, K. C., Cook, J. J. H., & Oduko, J. M. (2006). Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. In M. J. Flynn, & J. Hsieh (Eds.), Medical Imaging 2006: Physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE (vol. 6142), 614206-7.614206. DOI: 10.1117/12.653296.10.1117/12.653296Search in Google Scholar

4. de las Heras, H., Schöfer, F., & Tiller, B. (2013). A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography. Phys. Med. Biol., 58(8), L17–L30. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/8/L17.10.1088/0031-9155/58/8/L1723528479Search in Google Scholar

5. BMU. (2012). Development of procedures for non-destructive quality control of phantoms that are used in quality assurance tests according to §16, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the German x-ray ordinance at x-ray systems used for examination of humans UFO-Plan Vorhaben 3608S20001. German Ministry for Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Security. Braunschweig: PTB. (in German). Available from http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/handle/urn:nbn:de:0221-2012111310226/.Search in Google Scholar

6. van der Burght, R., Thijssen, M., & Bijkerk, R. (2010) Manual contrast – detail phantom CDMAM type 3.4. The Netherlands: Artinis Medical Systems BV.Search in Google Scholar

7. Young, K. C., Alsager, A., & Oduko, J. M. (2008). Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. In K. C. Young, A. Alsager, J. M. Oduko, H. Bosmans, B. Verbrugge, T. Geertse, & R. van Engen (Eds.), Medical Imaging 2008: Physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE (vol. 69131C). DOI: 10.1117/12.770571.10.1117/12.770571Search in Google Scholar

8. Van Metter, R., Heath, M., & Fletcher-Heath, L. (2006). Applying the European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening threshold contrast visibility assessment to digital systems. In M. J. Flynn, & J. Hsieh (Eds.), Medical Imaging 2006: Physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE (vol. 6142), 614205. DOI: 10.1117/12.650141.10.1117/12.650141Search in Google Scholar

9. Karssemeijer, N., & Thijssen, M. A. O. (1996). Determination of contrast-detail curves of mammography systems by automated image analysis. In K. Doi, M. L. Giger, & R. M. Nishikawa (Eds.), Digital mammography (pp. 155–160). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

10. Visser, R., & Karssemeijer, N. (2011). CDCOM Manual: software for automated readout of CDMAM 3.4 images. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University.Search in Google Scholar

11. Klein, S. A. (2001). Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary. Percept. Psychophys., 63(8), 1421–1455. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194552.10.3758/BF03194552Search in Google Scholar

12. Young, K. C., Brookes, E., Hudson, W., & Halling-Brown, M. D. (2012). CDMAM Analyser: Software and instruction manual for automated determination of threshold contrast. Version 1.5.5. Guildford: National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography.Search in Google Scholar

13. Kacker, N. R., Kessel, R., & Sommer, K. (2010). Assessing differences between results determined according to the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., 115(6), 453–459. DOI: 10.6028/jres.115.031.10.6028/jres.115.031454886727134797Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo