Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography

Extended exposure times in magnification mammography are a result of the reduced X-ray tube currents required for a small focal spot. The consequences of this are the potential for reduced image quality through motion blur during exposure as well as the onset of film reciprocity law failure. Previous investigators have suggested increasing the X-ray tube potential as a practical mechanism for reducing exposure times in magnification mammography and have demonstrated negligible image quality degradation at least up to 32 kVp. This paper describes a film-screen magnification mammography study that expands upon this previous work to investigate the magnitude of the reduction of breast mean glandular dose and exposure time and the changes in subjective image quality (visibility of low contrast details in an RMI 152 phantom) with increases in tube potential between 28 kVp and 35 kVp. Measures of changes in the radiographic contrast and in the scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) in magnification geometry as a function of tube potential were also obtained. Evidence for reciprocity law failure was also assessed. For a constant film optical density, increasing the X-ray tube potential from 28 kVp to 35 kVp reduced the mean glandular dose from 3.9 mGy to 2.7 mGy and reduced the exposure time from 3.2 s to 1.0 s. Over this range, the detection rate of fibrils and microcalcification-mimicking specks did not vary with tube potential at the 0.05 level of significance. It was found that only the low contrast mass detail detection rate at 35 kVp was significantly less than that at 28 kVp. The measured radiographic contrast decreased with tube potential and the SPR increased with tube potential. However, both changes were weak, and linear regressions determined that the 95% confidence intervals of the slopes relating both contrast and SPR with tube potential encompassed zero. It is concluded that magnification mammography performed at 34 kVp yields significant reductions in exposure time and mean glandular dose, with a detail detection capability similar to that at 28 kVp.     

Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations

Factors affecting image quality and patient dose in screen-film and digital mammography have been discussed. Some proposed parameters for judging image quality and breast exposure measurements and dose calculations relating to changes in image quality factors have been reviewed. It is important to remember that the goal in making a mammogram is to obtain as much diagnostic information as possible at the lowest dose compatible with that information. As noted previously, this necessitates compromises (i.e., an optimization of factors that affect image quality). These include beam quality, compression, imaging geometry, grids, receptor characteristics, processing of the film or digital image, and display and viewing conditions. If this is done correctly, a high-quality mammogram can be obtained at a reasonably low dose to the patient. The goal is not simply to use as low a dose as possible, because if this is done there is a large risk of degrading the performance of mammography in detecting or accurately characterizing small, node-negative cancers.     

Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography

In this study the effect of different mammographic screen-film combinations on image quality and breast dose, and the correlation between the various image quality parameters, breast dose and the sensitometric parameters of a film were investigated. Three Agfa (MR5-II, HDR, HT), two Kodak (Min-R M, Min-R 2000), one Fuji (AD-M), one Konica (CM-H) and one Ferrania (HM plus) single emulsion mammographic films were combined with three intensifying screens (Agfa HDS, Kodak Min-R 2190 and Fuji AD-MA). The film characteristics were determined by sensitometry, while the image quality and the dose to the breast of the resulting 24 screen-film combinations were assessed using a mammography quality control phantom. For each combination, three images of the phantom were acquired with optical density within three different ranges. Two observers assessed the quality of the 72 phantom images obtained, while the breast dose was calculated from the exposure data required for each image. Large differences among screen-film combinations in terms of image quality and breast dose were identified however, that, could not be correlated with the film's sensitometric characteristics. All films presented the best resolution when combined with the HDS screen at the expense of speed, and the largest speed when combined with the AD-MA screen, without degradation of the overall image quality. However, an ideal screen-film combination presenting the best image quality with the least dose was not identified. It is also worth mentioning that the best performance for a film was not necessarily obtained when this was combined with the screen provided by the same manufacturer. The results of this study clearly demonstrate that comparison of films based on their sensitometric characteristics are of limited value for clinical practice, as their performance is strongly affected by the screens with which they are combined.     

Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates

OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality, the lesion detection, and the diagnostic efficacy of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates (DSPM) in the evaluation of breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 150 patients with suspicious breast lesions underwent FFDM and DSPM. Nine aspects of image quality (brightness, contrast, sharpness, noise, artifacts, and the detection of anatomic structures, i.e., skin, retromamillary space, glandular tissue, and calcifications) were evaluated by five radiologists. In addition, the detection of breast lesions and the diagnostic efficacy, based on the BI-RADS classification, were evaluated with histologic and follow-up correlation. RESULTS: For contrast, sharpness, and the detection of all anatomic structures, FFDM was rated significantly better (p<0.05). Mass lesions were equally detected, whereas FFDM detected more lesions consisting of calcifications (85 versus 75). DSPM yielded two false-negative results. Both lesions were rated BI-RADS 4 with FFDM, but BI-RADS 2 with DSPM. Both were invasive carcinoma at histology. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of FFDM were 1.0, 0.397, 0.636, 1.0, and 0.707, compared to 0.974, 0.397, 0.630, 0.935, and 0.693 of DSPM. CONCLUSION: Based on image quality parameters, FFDM is, in part, significantly better than DSPM. Furthermore, the detection of breast lesions with calcifications is favorable with FFDM. However, the diagnostic efficacy of FFDM and DSPM was equal. The interpretation of the false-negative results suggests that the perception and characterization of breast lesions is not defined solely by the digital mammography system but is strongly influenced by the radiologist, who is one of the determinants in the interpretation of breast imaging.     

Image quality in mammography with special reference to anti-scatter grids and the magnification technique

Some of the parameters determining image quality in mammography are analyzed: the effects of primary photon spectra, focal spot size and screen-film systems on spatial resolution are discussed as are scattered radiation, development temperature and absorbed dose. The parameters limiting spatial resolution and contrast are evaluated for the standard and magnification techniques. Methods of reducing scattered radiation to improve contrast are evaluated. Scatter to primary ratios for different scatter reducing methods are compared, using the physical quantity energy imparted. For the standard technique the spatial resolution has been found to be limited by the fluorescent screen. With magnification technique the focal spot is the weakest link for the spatial resolution. The contrast is mainly set by the amount of scatter using the standard technique considering the use of a low tube potential (approximately 25 kVp). Using the magnification technique the amount of scatter is so small, that the tube potential is the limiting factor. We have found the optimized standard mammographic technique to be achieved under the following conditions: 25 kVp, 0.3 to 0.6 mm focal spot, film-focus distance 500 mm, anti-scatter grid, developing temperature 36 to 38 degrees C and 4 minutes total processing time with the screen-film system we have used. In magnification technique an air gap of at least 20 mm is desired. With an FFD of about 500 mm this will give a magnification ratio of 1.8 to 2.0 and a 0.1 mm X 0.1 mm focus spot is mandatory. With this technique, it is necessary to use a faster screen-film system than that used in standard mammography.     

Image quality of digital mammography images produced using wet and dry laser imaging systems

IntroductionA study was carried out to compare the quality of digital mammographic images printed or processed by a wet laser imaging system and a dedicated mammographic dry laser imaging system.Material and methodsDigital images of a tissue equivalent breast phantom were obtained using a GE Senographe 2000D digital mammography system and different target/filter combinations of the X-ray tube. These images were printed on films using the Fuji FL-IM D wet laser imaging system and the Kodak DryView 8600 dry laser imaging system. The quality of images was assessed in terms of detectability of microcalcifications and simulated tumour masses by five radiologists. In addition, the contrast index and speed index of the two systems were measured using the step wedge in the phantom. The unpaired, unequal variance t-test was used to test any statistically significant differences.ResultsThere were no significant (p < 0.05) differences between the images printed using the two systems in terms of microcalcification and tumour mass detectability. The wet system resulted in slightly higher contrast index while the dry system showed significantly higher speed index.ConclusionBoth wet and dry laser imaging systems can produce mammography images of good quality on which 0.2 mm microcalcifications and 2 mm tumour masses can be detected. Dry systems are preferable due to the absence of wet chemical processing and solid or liquid chemical waste. The wet laser imaging systems, however, still represent a useful alternative to dry laser imaging systems for mammography studies.     

Image quality of mammography in Croatian nationwide screening program: comparison between various types of facilities

Purpose

The study was aimed to provide objective evidence about the mammographic image quality in Croatia, to compare it between different types of MG facilities and to identify the most common deficiencies and possible reasons as well as the steps needed to improve image quality.

Materials and methods

A total of 420 mammographic examinations collected from 84 mammographic units participating in the Croatian nationwide breast cancer screening program were reviewed in terms of four image quality categories: identification of patient and examination, breast positioning and compression, exposure and contrast, and artifacts. Those were rated using image evaluating system based on American College of Radiology and European Commission proposals. The results were compared among different types of mammographic units, and common image quality deficiencies were identified.

Results

Total image quality scores of 12.8, 16.1, 13.0 and 13.7 were found for general hospitals, university hospitals, private clinics and public healthcare centres, respectively. Average score for all mammographic units was 13.5 (out of 25 points). University hospitals were significantly better than all other mammography units in overall image quality, which was mostly contributed by better breast positioning practices. Private clinics showed the worst results in identification, exposure, contrast and artifacts.

Conclusions

Serious deficiencies in identification and breast positioning, which might compromise breast cancer screening outcome, were detected in our material. They occur mainly due to subjective reasons and could be corrected through additional staff training and improvement of working discipline.     

Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography

An experimental method of determining the optimal beam quality for digital mammography systems was applied to two systems (Fuji Profect and GE Senographe 2000D). The mean glandular dose (MGD) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured using Perspex breast phantoms simulating breasts from 20 mm to 90 mm thick. For each thickness, four combinations of tube voltage and target/filter were tested. Optimal beam quality was defined as giving a target CNR for the lowest MGD and was similar for the two systems. For breasts with a thickness of 21 mm or 32 mm, a tube voltage of either 25 kV or 28 kV and a Mo/Mo target/filter combination was optimal. For breast thicknesses of 45 mm and greater, the combination that had the highest X-ray energy (34 kV Rh/Rh) was optimal. Optimization using the higher energy beam quality required greater detector dose to compensate for the lower contrast. Thus for a 75 mm thick breast the 34 kV Rh/Rh combination required about a 90% greater detector dose than 28 kV Mo/Mo to achieve the same CNR because of the 25% reduction in contrast. Nonetheless, the MGD was reduced by 32% by choosing the higher energy spectra and achieving the same CNR. Current automatic exposure control (AEC) designs that aim for a fixed detector dose are not optimal and greater use of higher energy spectra should be accompanied by higher detector doses at all breast thicknesses which are average or above. This may result in slightly higher doses, but better image quality for these breasts.     

两种数字乳腺X射线摄影系统的比较

目的探讨比较全视野数字乳腺X射线摄影系统(FFDM)与计算机乳腺X射线摄影系统(CRM)在影像质量与辐射剂量方面的差异。方法用FFDM对ALVIM乳腺摄影体模TRM进行自动曝光控制(AEC)摄影,再用CRM专用成像板(IP)在同一摄影机上用相同条件对体模摄影。固定AEC摄影时的kV值,选用曝光量数值14、16、18、22和24 mAs,在FFDM机上对模体摄影,记录上述摄影条件和入射皮肤剂量(ESD)及平均腺体剂量(AGD)。由5位影像科资深医师分别在相同条件下对所得影像进行软阅读,按照5分值判断法评判,然后绘制受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)曲线,计算出每种信号的判断概率值(P_det),对所得数据进行统计学分析。结果在辐射剂量均为1.36 mGy时,FFDM对模体内钙化点和肿块灶P_det值比CRM高,尤其是微小钙化点和小肿块灶,微小钙化点最大差值为0.215,小肿块灶最大差值为0.245。在相同的P_det值下,FFDM的辐射剂量比CRM低,ESD的值降低了26%,腺体平均剂量降低了41%。在使用FFDM摄影时,当mAs值超过AEC值时,P_det值没有明显改变。结论在相同曝光条件下,FFDM对乳腺钙化点和肿块灶的检出率高于CRM;在获得相似图像质量时,FFDM的辐射剂量明显低于CRM。     

Digital mammography: quality and dose control

PURPOSE: For almost 3 years, Radiologists and Physicists from Padova and Ferrara Universities have collaborated together, with the aim of collecting and comparing experimental data useful to define the most significant parameters for quality controls in digital mammography. Successively, radiologists and physicists working in other sites where a digital mammography unit was installed joined the work-group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study we report the results obtained from measurements of linearity, uniformity, short- and long-term reproducibility, AEC stability performed on 5 digital equipment by using a simple test object. X-ray beam quality and tube yield were preliminarily checked in such a way that possible uncertainties of digital system responses could be separated from those due to differences among X-ray tubes. RESULTS: Results showed that the equipment considered, comparable in terms of both beam quality (HVL) and tube yield, always displayed linear response and reproducibility errors lower than 5%. Uniformity was very good and the grey level compensation as a function of exposure parameters remained within 5%. Differences in choice of parameters by exposure control system (AOP) were emphasised, especially for crossing between track/filter combinations (from Mo/Mo to Mo/Rh and from Mo/Rh to Rh/Rh); those differences were attributed to the +/-2 mm tolerance of breast thickness measurement (mechanically obtained) greater than the AOP tolerance (+/-1 mm). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Obtained results can be useful, as comparison and reference values, for users employing a digital mammography unit of the same kind reported in this paper. Moreover, the same results could be used as "orientation" also by other users having different digital mammography technologies, whose operation should be nevertheless specifically studied and understood in order to find the most useful parameters for quality controls. The acquired experience clearly showed us that years of investigations will be necessary in order to be able to write reliable protocols. This should induce people to contemplate the necessity of not improvising "theoretical" protocols, that are unreliable and dangerous for their negative clinical implications.