Use of Processed Mammography Images as a Quality Control Tool

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.

___

Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal
  • ISSN: 2630-5720
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2018
  • Yayıncı: Kare Yayıncılık

5.2b3.7b

Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

A Rare Complication of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Cerebral Infarction and Hemianopsia

Abdurrahman İNKAYA, Ahmet TAHRA, Resul SOBAY, Uğur BOYLU, Eyüp Veli KÜÇÜK

Correlation of Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio with Histopathological Findings in Patients with Tongue Cancer

İldem DEVECİ, Mehmet Sürmeli

Use of Processed Mammography Images as a Quality Control Tool

GÜVEN BEKTEMÜR, Nedim MUZOĞLU, Melike KAYA KARAASLAN, Mehmet Taşkın EĞİCİ, ÖZCAN GÜNDOĞDU

Clinicopathologic Results in Meniere Disease: Evaluation of 80 patients

Mehmet Sürmeli, İldem DEVECİ

Incidence of Solitary Rectal Ulcer Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

UFUK KUTLUANA

Evaluation of Endometrial Changes with Transvaginal Power Doppler Ultrasound and Comparing Them with Endometrial Sampling in Breast Cancer Patients Using Tamoxifen

Önder SAKİN, Bülent KARS, Orhan ÜNAL, ENGİN ERSİN ŞİMŞEK, Halim Ömer KAŞIKÇI, ZEHRA MELTEM PİRİMOĞLU, Ali Dogukan ANGIN, Muzaffer Seyhan ÇIKMAN

The Evaluation of use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Practices in the Treatment of Children with Chronic Neurological Disease

KÜRŞAT BORA ÇARMAN, Sibel Laçinel GÜRLEVİK, Emre KAPLAN, MELTEM DİNLEYİCİ, COŞKUN YARAR, DİDEM ARSLANTAŞ

Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential Responses in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Ahmet BAKİ, Ahmet Adnan CIRIK, Özlem PEHLİVAN, Muhammet YILDIZ

A Rare Complication of Intravesical Bacillus Calmette Guérin Therapy: Local Progressive Pelvic Inflammation

Serkan AKAN, Aytaç ŞAHİN, Özgür Haki YÜKSEL, Ahmet ÜRKMEZ

Evaluation of Factors Affecting Adult Immunization

MEMET TAŞKIN EGİCİ, Beray Gelmez TAŞ, Mufide Arzu OZKARAFAKİLİ, Güzin ZEREN ÖZTÜRK