Introduction: According to international quality control testing standards, image quality determination in mammography systems is based on measuring contrast-detail measurements with contrast-detail for mammography (CDMAM) phantom. It is therefore important to evaluate the CDMAM phantom images correctly. The purpose of this study is to compare the inverse image quality figure index (IQFinv) obtained by automatically evaluating digital CDMAM phantom images with Artinis software (version 2.2, CDCOM) for raw and processed images. Methods: Digital phantom images were acquired in three different full-field digital mammography systems by using automatic exposure conditions (AEC). Five different phantom images were obtained from each mammography system as raw and processed as well as evaluated by the software. In addition, the IQFinv values of the systems were compared for mammography systems and the difference in between values was observed. Results: The differences between the IQFinv values of raw and processed images were found to be 1.34%, 5.62%, and 6.7% for System A, B, and C, respectively. Discussion and Conclusion: It was observed that the differences between the IQFinv values of raw and processed images were almost negligible and the IQFinv values obtained from the raw images were slightly higher than the values obtained from the processed images.
1. Mayo P, Rodenas F, Verdú G, Campayo JM. Analysis of Digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms. In: Dössel O, Schlegel WC, editors. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering; 2009 Sept 7 – 12; Munich, Germany. [CrossRef ]
2. Young KC, Oduko JM, Gundogdu O, Alsager A. Comparing the Performance of Digital Mammography Systems. In: Krupinski EA, editor. Digital Mammography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 5116. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 732–39. [CrossRef ]
3. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services. Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening. European Commission Netherlands: European Commission; 2014.
4. Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. European Commission; 2006.
5. Lyra ME, Kordolaimi SD, Salvara ALN. Presentation of Digital Radiographic Systems and the Quality Control Procedures that Currently Followed by Various Organizations Worldwide. Recent Patents on Medical Imaging 2010;2:5-21. [CrossRef ]
6. IEC 61223-3-2:2007 Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments - Part 3-2: Acceptance tests - Imaging performance of mammographic X-ray equipment. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2007.
7. Floor M, Van Der Burght R. Manuel Contrast-Detail Phantom CDMAM 3.4 and CDMAM 3.4 Analyser Software V2.2. Netherlands; Artinis Medical System; 2014.
8. Oberhofer N, Paruccini N, Moroder E. Image Quality Assessment and Equipment Optimisation with Automated Phantom Evaluation in Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM). In: Krupinski EA, editor. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 5116. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 235–42. [CrossRef ]
9. Bacher K. Evaluation of image quality and patient radiation dose in digital radiology [Dissertation]. Gent: Gent University; 2006.
10. Oduko JM, Young KC, Gundogdu O, Alsager A. Effect of Using Tungsten-Anode X-Ray Tubes on Dose and Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 5116. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 522–9. [CrossRef ]
11. Ruben E, Van E, Young C.K, Bosmans H, Lazzari B, Schopphoven S, Heid P, Thijssen M. A supplement to the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. In: Martí J, Oliver A, Freixenet J, Martí R, editors. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 6136. Berlin: Springer.
12. Zanca F, Bosmans H, Jacobs J, Michielsen K, Sisini F, Nens J, et al. Contrast-Detail comparison between unprocessed and processed CDMAM images. Proceedings of the SPIE 7258, Medical Imaging: Physics of Medical Imaging; 2009 Mar 14. Lake Buena Vista, USA: SPIE; 2009. [CrossRef ]
13. Collado-Chamorro P, Sanz-Freire C, Gómez-Amez J, Vázquez- Galiñanes A, Lopo-Casqueiro N, González-De La Puente M. Contrast Detail Curves on Digital Mammography: Performance Comparison of Raw and Filtered Images. In: Martí J, Oliver A, Freixenet J, Martí R, editors. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 6136. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 304–11.
14. Borg M, Badr I, Royle GJ. Should Processed or Raw image Data Be Used in Mammographic Image Quality analyses? A Comparative Study of Three Full-Field Digital Mammography Systems. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2010;163:102–17.