Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom

  • Song, Sung Eun (Department of Radiology, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan Hospital) ;
  • Seo, Bo Kyoung (Department of Radiology, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan Hospital) ;
  • Yie, An (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Ku, Bon Kyung (Department of Radiology, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Young (Department of Biostatistics, Korea University College of Medicine, Anam Hospital) ;
  • Cho, Kyu Ran (Department of Radiology, Korea University College of Medicine, Anam Hospital) ;
  • Chung, Hwan Hoon (Department of Radiology, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Seung Hwa (Department of Radiology, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan Hospital) ;
  • Hwang, Kyu-Won (Department of Radiology, Korea University College of Medicine, Anam Hospital)
  • Published : 2012.12.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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 ${\pm}$ 2.79) and that of Digital Phantom ranged from 24.8 to 54.0 (Mean, 44.1 ${\pm}$ 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiographics 1998;18:893-901 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.18.4.9672974
  2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911
  3. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246:376-383 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461070200
  4. Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Muller-Schimpfle M. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 2005;78:312-315 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/33317317
  5. Krug KB, Stutzer H, Girnus R, Zahringer M, Gossmann A, Winnekendonk G, et al. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:399-407 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.2006
  6. American College of Radiology, Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Mammography quality control manual: radiologist's section, clinical image quality, radiologic technologist's section, medical physicist's section, Rev. ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999
  7. Butler PF. MQSA and accreditation for full-field digital mammography: everything you need to know in 1/2 hour. In: ACR Breast Imaging Accreditation Programs. Available at: http://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Documents/Accreditation/Mammography/MQSA%20and%20Accreditation%20RSNA07.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2012
  8. McLean D, Eckert M, Heard R, Chan W. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations. Australas Radiol 1997;41:387-391 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.1997.tb00656.x
  9. Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Dance DR. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography? Acad Radiol 2002;9:764-772 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80345-8
  10. Jemal A, Clegg LX, Ward E, Ries LA, Wu X, Jamison PM, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2001, with a special feature regarding survival. Cancer 2004;101:3-27 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20288
  11. Yamada T, Suzuki A, Uchiyama N, Ohuchi N, Takahashi S. Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2363-2369 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1016-8
  12. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Setoguchi T, Sakai S, Okafuji T, et al. Diagnostic performance in differentiation of breast lesion on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel LCD monitor, and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. Clin Imaging 2011;35:341-345 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2010.08.015
  13. Chon KS, Park JG, Son HH, Kang SH, Park SH, Kim HW, et al. Usefulness of a small-field digital mammographic imaging system using parabolic polycapillary optics as a diagnostic imaging tool: a preliminary study. Korean J Radiol 2009;10:604-612 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2009.10.6.604

Cited by

  1. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888
  2. Comparison of Image Quality between Mammography Dedicated Monitor and UHD 4K Monitor, Using Standard Mammographic Phantom: A Preliminary Study vol.76, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2017.76.3.173
  3. EVALUATION OF RADIATION DOSE FOR PATIENTS UNDERGOING MAMMOGRAPHY IN QATAR vol.189, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncaa049