These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
    Author: Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Campanini R, Bertolini M, Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Danielli C, Angelini L, Maggi S.
    Journal: Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4198-209. PubMed ID: 17153399.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study was to perform a complete evaluation of three pieces of clinical digital mammography equipment. Image quality was assessed by performing physical characterization and contrast-detail (CD) analysis. We considered three different FFDM systems: a computed radiography unit (Fuji "FCR 5000 MA") and two flat-panel units, the indirect conversion a-Si based GE "Senographe 2000D" and the direct conversion a-Si based IMS "Giotto Image MD." The physical characterization was estimated by measuring the MTF, NNPS, and DQE of the detectors with no antiscatter grid and over the clinical range of exposures. The CD analysis was performed using a CDMAM 3.4 phantom and custom software designed for automatic computation of the contrast-detail curves. The physical characterization of the three digital systems confirms the excellent MTF properties of the direct conversion flat-panel detector (FPD). We performed a relative standard deviation (RSD) analysis, for investigating the different components of the noise presented by the three systems. It turned out that the two FPDs show a significant additive component, whereas for the CR system the statistical noise is dominant. The multiplicative factor is a minor constituent for all the systems. The two FPDs demonstrate better DQE, with respect to the CR system, for exposures higher than 70 microGy. The CD analysis indicated that the three systems are not statistically different for detail objects with a diameter greater than 0.3 mm. However, the IMS system showed a statistically significant different response for details smaller than 0.3 mm. In this case, the poor response of the a-Se detector could be attributed to its high-frequency noise characteristics, since its MTF, NEQ, and DQE are not inferior to those of the other systems. The CD results were independent of exposure level, within the investigated clinical range. We observed slight variations in the CD results, due to the changes in the visualization parameters (window/level and magnification factor). This suggests that radiologists would benefit from viewing images using varied window/level and magnification.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]