Caracterização de sistemas de mamografia digital no domínio da frequência para diferentes condições de exposição
Keywords:
digital detectors, response curve, noise evaluation, MTF, NNPS, DQEAbstract
The strong advance of digital mammography in Brazil as a breast cancer screening tool requires that the new digital systems available be characterized. Radiology quality assurance programs are designed to ensure that certain levels of image quality are maintained in imaging equipment. Recent measurements introduced in digital mammography protocols indicate large variations in the evaluated parameters, pointing to the different detectors used as the main factor. A comprehensive and quantitative assessment of the spatial resolution of a system can be obtained from its modulation transfer function (MTF). Robust measurements of noise can be made from normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) and quantum detection efficiency (DQE) as a function of spatial frequency at various exposure levels. The objective of this work is to characterize in terms of MTF, NNPS and DQE several mammography systems, determining their basic objective characteristics of resolution and noise at different levels of air kerma at the detector input plane (DAK). The CR Carestream EHR-M3 detector, the small field digital mammography system Siemens Opdima, and full field digital mammography systems Planmed Clarity, GE Essential, GE Pristina and GE Crystal Nova were characterized. The basic performance of the tested systems was evaluated in terms of response function, evaluation of noise components, MTF, NNPS and DQE using European Guidelines protocol. The attenuated beam qualities (obtained with additional 2 mm Al filtration) used were 28 kVP with Mo/Mo anode/filter combination for EHR-M3, Opdima, Essential and Pristina; 28 kVP with Mo/Rh for EHR-M3; 28 kVP with W/Rh for the system Crystal Nova; 28 kVP with W/Ag for the Clarity; and 34 kVP Rh/Ag for the Pristina. As expected, the CR system showed a logarithmic response, and the DR systems showed a linear response (R² > 0.999). The Pristina system showed higher slope and intercept for the Rh/Ag beam. Noise evaluation showed that EHR-M3 is quantum limited up to 650 µGy (Mo/Mo) and 380 µGy (Mo/Rh), while Opdima is quantum limited up to 300 µGy. For higher DAK values, structural noise is the dominant noise source. For the Opdima detector, structural noise is related to the presence of low frequency inhomogeneities in the data, while for CR detectors it is related to the size of the phosphor grains. The other systems are quantum limited in the evaluated DAK range. The evaluated systems presented reasonably isotropic MTF. MTF showed no dependence with beam quality for EHR-M3 and Pristina detectors. The Clarity system had the highest MTF values, followed by the Opdima and Essential, Pristina, EHR-M3 and Crystal Nova systems. NNPS increased with decreasing DAK. For the Pristina system, the NNPS decreased with increasing beam energy. The Crystal Nova system showed the lowest NNPS values. DQE increased, reached a maximum and then decreased with increasing DAK. The DAK range which maximizes DQE depended on system noise composition. DQE was influenced by beam energy. The Crystal Nova system showed the best performance in terms of DQE for low spatial frequency. Opdima and Clarity systems exhibited higher DQE for high spatial frequencies. Agreement with data from literature indicates that the systems evaluated are operating under typical conditions. Evidence of improvement in detectors performance was found.
Downloads
References
Alikunju RP, Kearney S, Moss R, Khan A, Stamatis Y, Bullard E, Anaxagoras T, Brodrick J, Olivo A. Effect of different scintillator choices on the X-ray imaging performance of CMOS sensors. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment. 2023;1050:168136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2023.168136.
ANVISA. Instrução Normativa nº 92, de 27 de maio de 2021. Diário Oficial da União, 31 maio 2021 [acesso em 25 agosto 2023]. Disponível em: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/anvisa/2020/in092_27_05_2021.pdf.
Attix FH. Introduction to radiological physics and radiation dosimetry. Germany: Wiley-VCH; 2004.
Bloomquist AK, Mainprize JG, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography. Med Phys. 2014;41(3):031905-1-11.
Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Ferrari P, Tassoni D. On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med. Phys. 2003;30;1719–31.
Burgess A. On the noise variance of a digital mammography system. Med. Phys. 2004;31;1987–95.
Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt Jr EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3ª edição. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
Carestream Health, Inc. Carestream Industrex. Technical Data/Non-Destructive Testing. New York; 2016.
Carton AK, Vandenbroucke D, Struye L, Maidment ADA, Kao YH, Albert M, Bosmans H, Marchal G. Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control. Med Phys. 2005;32(6):1684-1695.
Cunha DM, Tomal A, Poletti ME. Optimization of x-ray spectra in digital mammography through Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(7):1919–1935.
Cunningham IA. Applied linear-systems theory. In: Van Metter RL, Beutel J, Kundel HL (org.). Handbook of medical imaging, Volume 1. Physics and physicophysics. Belligham: SPIE, 2000, cap. 2, p. 81-159.
Cunningham IA, Shaw R. Signal-to-noise optimization of medical imaging systems. J Opt Soc Am A. 1999;16(3):621-632.
Day JA, Tanguay J. The detective quantum efficiency of cadmium telluride photon-counting x-ray detectors in breast imaging applications. Med Phys. 2021;49(3):1481-1494. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15411
Dobbins JT 3rd, Samei E, Ranger NT, Chen Y. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. II. Noise power spectrum. Med Phys. 2006;33(5):1466-1475. Donini B, Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Bertolini M. Free software for performing physical analysis of systems for digital radiography and mammography. Med Phys. 2014;41(5):051903.
EUREF. European Commission. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2006.
Evans DS, Workman A, Payne M. A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:117–135. Feng K, Wang Z, Yang Y. Development of medical imaging sensors. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks. 2020;16(1). doi: 10.1177/1550147720903607
Fetterly KA, Schueler BA. Performance evaluation of a “dual‐side read” dedicated mammography computed radiography system. Med Phys. 2003;30(7):1843-1854. Frederico Alvarez MJ, Banguero Y. Caracterización del detector de un sistema de mamografía digital en modos de adquisición 2D y 3D. Revista Brasileira de Física Médica. 2023;17:609. doi: 10.29384/rbfm.2023.v17.19849001609.
Ghetti C, Borrini A, Ortenzia O, Rossi R, Ordóñez PL. Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors. Med Phys. (2008);35(2):456-463.
Hillen W, Schiebel U, Zaengel T. Imaging performance of a digital storage phosphor system. Med. Phys. 1987;14:744–751.
IAEA. International Atomic Energy Agency. Dosimetry in Diagnostic Radiology: An International Code of Practice. Technical Reports Series No. 457. Vienna: IAEA; 2007.
ICRU. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU Report 54. Medical Imaging – The Assessment of Image Quality. Maryland; 1996.
ICRU. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU Report 82. Mammography – Assessment of Image Quality. Maryland; 2009.
IEC. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment – Characteristics of digital x-ray imaging devices – Part 1-2: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency – detectors used in mammography. Geneva: IEC-62220–1; 2007.
IEC. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment – Characteristics of digital x-ray imaging devices – Part 1: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency. Geneva: IEC-62220–1; 2015.
INCA. Instituto Nacional de Câncer (2022). Estimativa 2023: incidência de câncer no Brasil [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: INCA [citado 18 abril 2023]. Disponível em: https://www.inca.gov.br/sites/ufu.sti.inca.local/files//media/document//estimativa-2023.pdf.
Johns HE, Cunningham JR. The Physics of Radiology. 4th ed. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas; 1983.
Karellas A, Vedantham S. Detectors for digital mammography. In G. Whitman & T. Haygood (Eds.), Digital Mammography: A Practical Approach (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139049337.002
Kim HK, Cunningham IA, Yin Z, Cho G. On the development of digital radiography detectors: a review. Intern J Prec Eng & Man. 2008;9(4):86-100.
Kulama E, Burch A, Castellano I, Lawinski CP, Marshall N, Young KC. Commissioning and routine testing of full field digital mammography systems (NHSBSP Equipment Report 0604, Version 3). Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2009.
Mackenzie A, Honey ID. Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors. Med Phys. 2007;34 (8):3345-57.
Mackenzie A, Khan R, Young KC. Historical trends in image quality and mean glandular dose in digital mammography. Proc. SPIE IWBI2020. 2020, 11513, 115131G. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2550568
Makeev A, Ikejimba LC, Salad J, Glick SJ. Objective assessment of task performance: a comparison of two FFDM detectors using an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Journal of Medical Imaging 2019;6(4): 043503.
Marshall NW. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(18):5545.
Marshall NW. Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(9):2845.
Marshall NW, Monnin P, Bosmans H, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of systems. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:4201-4220.
Marshall NW, Lemmens K, Bosmans H. Physical evaluation of needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system. Med Phys. 2012;39(2):811-823.
Marshall NW, van Ongeval C, Bosmans H. Performance evaluation of a retrofit digital detector-based mammography system. Phys. Med. 2016;32:312–322.
Marshall NW, Smet M, Hofmans M, Pauwels H, De Clercq T, Bosmans H. Technical characterization of five x-ray detectors for paediatric radiography applications. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(24):N573.
Michail C, Valais I, Seferis I, Kalyvas N, Fountos G, Kandarakis I. Experimental measurement of a high resolution CMOS detector coupled to CsI scintillators under X-ray radiation. Radiation Measurements. 2015;74:39-46.
Monnin P, Verdun FR. Qualification of digital mammography imaging systems Kodak CR 975 – EHR-M2 & EHR-M3. Lausanne: Institut Universitaire de Radiophysique Appliquée, 2009
Monnin P, Bosmans H, Verdun FR, Marshall NW. Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems. Phys. Med. Biol. 2014;59;5741. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/19/5741
Monnin P, Bosmans H, Verdun FR, Marshall NW. A comprehensive model for quantum noise characterization in digital mammography. Phys. Med. Biol. 2016;61;2083. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/5/2083
NHS. NHS Breast Screening Programme equipment report. Technical Evaluation of Siemens Revelation digital mammography system in 2D mode. London: Public Health England, 2019a
NHS. NHS Breast Screening Programme equipment report. Technical Evaluation of Hologic 3Dimensions digital mammography system in 2D mode. London: Public Health England, 2019b
NHS. NHS Breast Screening Programme equipment report. Technical Evaluation of IMS Giotto Class digital mammography system in 2D mode. London: Public Health England, 2019c
NHS. NHS Breast Screening Programme. Technical evaluation of GE Senographe Pristina digital mammography system in 2D mode. 2019d.
NHS. NHS Breast Screening Programme equipment report. Technical evaluation of Planmed Clarity digital mammography system in 2D mode. London: Public Health England, 2019e
Ou X, Chen X, Xu X, Xie L, Chen X, Hong Z, Bai H, Liu X, Chen Q, Li L, Yang H. Recent development in X-ray imaging technology: future and challenges. Res. 2021;2021:1–18.
Porzio M, Konstantinidis A. Mammo_QC: Free software for quality control (QC) analysis in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis compliant with the European guidelines and EUREF/EFOMP protocols. Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express. 2021;7(6). Ranger NT, Samei E, Dobbins JT 3rd, Ravin CE. Assessment of detective quantum efficiency: intercomparison of a recently introduced international standard with prior methods. Radiology. 2007;243(3):785-95. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2433060485.
Rimkus D, Baily NA. Quantum noise in detectors. Med. Phys. 1983;10;470–1.
Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Bertolini M, Nitrosi A, Burani A, Acchiappati D. Comparison of different computed radiography systems: physical characterization and contrast detail analysis. Med. Phys. 2010;37(2);440–448. https:// doi.org/10.1118/1.3284539.
Rowlands JA. The physics of computed radiography. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:R123–R166.
Samei E, Flynn MJ, Reimann DA. A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. Med Phys. 1998;25(1):102-113.
Samei E, Buhr E, Granfors P, Vandenbroucke D, Wang X. Comparison of edge analysis techniques for the determination of the MTF of digital radiographic systems. Phys. Med. Biol. 2005;50;3613. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/15/009
Samei E, Ranger NT, Dobbins JT 3rd, Chen Y. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function. Med Phys. 2006;33(5):1454-1465.
Samei E, Ikejimba LC, Harrawood BP, Rong J, Cunningham IA, Flynn MJ. Report of AAPM Task Group 162: software for planar image quality metrology. Med. Phys. 2018;45(2):e32–e39. Schneider C, Rasband W, Eliceiri K. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089
Seco J, Clasie B, Partridge M. Review on the characteristics of radiation detectors for dosimetry and imaging. Phys. Med. Biol. 2014;59:R303–R347.
Secretaria de atenção à Saúde. Cadastro Nacional dos Estabelecimentos de Saúde: consulta de equipamentos [citado 18 abril 2023]. Disponível em: http://cnes2.datasus.gov.br/Mod_Ind_Equipamento.asp?VEstado=00.
Seibert JA, Bogucki T, Ciona T, Huda W, Karellas A, Mercier J, Samei E, Shepard JS, Stewart B, Strauss K, Suleiman O, Tucker D, Uzenoff R, Weiser J, Willis C. AAPM Report #93: Quality Control and Acceptance Testing of Photostimulable Storage Phosphor Imaging Systems. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2006. Seifert E. Origin Pro 9.1: Scientific Data Analysis and Graphing Software-Software Review. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2014;54(5):1552. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci500161d
Siewerdsen JH, Antonuk LE, el-Mohri Y, Yorkston J, Huang W, Boudry JM, Cunningham IA. Empirical and theoretical investigation of the noise performance of indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for diagnostic radiology. Med. Phys. 1997;24;71–89. Siewerdsen J. Optimization of 2D and 3D Radiographic Imaging Systems. In E. Samei & E. Krupinski (Eds.), The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques (pp. 417-439). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. doi:10.1017/9781108163781.028 Tanaka N, Morishita, J. Computed Radiography. Handbook of X-ray Imaging: Physics and Technology. 2017 pp. 219-238
Thunberg SJ, Sklebitz H, Ekdahl B, Baetz L, Lundin A, Moeller H, Fleischmann F, Kreider G, Weidner T. OPDIMA: large-area CCD-based x-ray image sensor for spot imaging and biopsy control in mammography. Medical Imaging 1999: Physics of Medical Imaging; 3659: 150-158. doi 10.1117/12.349488.
Traino AC, Barca P, Lamastra R, Tucciariello RM, Sottocornola C, Marini C, Aringhieri G, Caramella D, Fantacci ME. Average absorbed breast dose (2ABD): an easy radiation dose index
for digital breast tomosynthesis. European Radiology Experimental. 2020;4:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-020-00165-2
van Engen RE, Bosmans H, Dance D, Heid P, Lazzari B, Marshall N, Schopphoven S, Thijssen M, Young K. Digital mammography update update. European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. S1, part 1: acceptance and constancy testing. In: Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed, Supplements. Luxembourg: European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Union; 2013a. p. 1–54.
Wigati KT, Marshall NW, Lemmens K, Binst J, Jacobs A, Cockmartin L, Zhang G, Vancoillie L, Petrov D, Vandenbroucke DAN, Soejoko DS, Bosmans H. On the relevance of modulation transfer function measurements in digital mammography quality control. Journal of Medical Imaging 2021;8(2):023505.
Williams MB, Krupinski EA, Strauss KJ, Breeden WK 3rd, Rzeszotarski MS, Applegate K, Wyatt M, Bjork S, Seibert JA. Digital radiography image quality: image acquisition. J Am Coo Radiol 2007;4(6):371-388.
Yaffe MJ. Detectors for digital mammography. In: Bick, U., Diekmann, F. (Eds.), Digital Mammography. Springer, pp. 13–31; 2010. Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Hunter DM, Mawdsley GE, Chiarelli AM, Muradali D, Mainprize JG. Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program. Medical physics. 2013, 40(12), 121915. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.482951
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Alessandra Maia Marques Martinez Perez, Martin Eduardo Poletti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The submission of original articles to the Brazilian Journal of Medical Physics implies the transfer, by the authors, of the rights of print and digital publication. Copyright for published articles remains with the author, with journal rights on first publication. Authors may only use the same results in other publications by clearly indicating this journal as the original publisher. As we are an open access journal, free use of articles in educational, scientific, non-commercial applications is allowed, as long as the source is cited.
The Brazilian Journal of Medical Physics is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
