Factors for conversion between human and automatic read-outs of CDMAM images

Technical note: Realization and uncertainty analysis for an adjustable 3D structured breast phantom in digital breast tomosynthesis

BACKGROUND

Projection imaging phantoms are often optimized for 2-dimensional image characteristics in homogeneous backgrounds. Therefore, evaluation of image quality in tomosynthesis (DBT) lacks accepted and established phantoms.

PURPOSE

We describe a 3D breast phantom with a structured, variable background. The phantom is an adaptable and advanced version of the L1 phantom by Cockmartin et al. Phantom design and its use for quality assurance measurements for DBT devices are described. Four phantoms were compared to assess the objectivity.

METHODS

The container size was increased to a diameter of 24 cm and a total height of 53.5 mm. Spiculated masses were replaced by five additional non-spiculated masses for higher granularity in threshold diameter resolution. These patterns are adjustable to the imaging device. The masses were printed in one session with a base layer using two-component 3D printing. New materials compared to the L1 phantom improved the attenuation difference between the lesion models and the background. Four phantoms were built and intra-human observer, inter-human observer and inter-phantom variations were determined. The latter assess the reproducibility of the phantom production. Coefficients of variance (V) were calculated for all three variations.

RESULTS

The difference of the attenuation coefficients between the lesion models and the background was 0.20 cm-1 (with W/Al at 32 kV, equivalent to 19-20 keV effective energy) compared to 0.21 cm-1 for 50/50 glandular/adipose breast tissue and cancerous lesions. PMMA equivalent thickness of the phantom was 47.0 mm for the Siemens Mammomat Revelation. For the masses, theV i n t r a $V_{intra}$ for the intra-observer variation was 0.248, the averaged inter-observer variation,V ¯ i n t e r $\overline{V}_{inter}$ was 0.383.V p h a n t o m $V_{phantom}$ for phantom variance was 0.321. For the micro-calcifications,V i n t r a $V_{intra}$ was 0.0429,V ¯ i n t e r = $\overline{V}_{inter}=$ 0.0731 andV p h a n t o m = $V_{phantom}=$ 0.0759.

CONCLUSIONS

Position, orientation and shape of the masses are reproducible and attenuation differences appropriate. The phantom presented proved to be a candidate test object for quality control.

Analysis of the threshold image contrast obtained with the CDMAM 3.4 and CDMAM 4.0 phantoms

Quality control in mammography is a very important element. One of the parameters indicating the appropriate image quality is the threshold image contrast. The CDMAM phantom is used to measure this parameter. It is currently available in two versions 3.4 and 4.0. The aim of this work is to compare the threshold image contrast readings obtained with the CDMAM 3.4 and CDMAM 4.0 phantoms. In the measurements, 9 CDMAM 4.0 phantoms were used to check the difference in indications of individual copies. The phantom whose readings were closest to the average of all readings was used for comparative measurements with the CDMAM 3.4 phantom. Measurements were made on 40 mammography devices. The obtained images were read with the software provided by the phantom manufacturer and the CDMAM Analysis v2.3.0 (NCCPM) software. The average percentage difference between the minimum and maximum values indicated by the CDMAM 4.0 phantoms was 10.09%. Using the CDMAM Analysis v2.3.0 (NCCPM) software, the average difference in readings between the CDMAM 3.4 and CDMAM 4.0 phantoms is 7.93%, and when using the software provided by the phantom manufacturer, it is as much as 60.15%. The obtained results of the threshold image contrast are affected by the type of software used for reading and the accuracy of the execution of individual elements of the phantom. It is recommended to use CDMAM Analysis v2.3.0 (NCCPM) software or the latest software provided by the phantom manufacturer to read the phantom images.

Digital radiography image quality evaluation using various phantoms and software

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of the exposure parameters on image quality (IQ) metrics of phantom images, obtained automatically using software or from visual evaluation.

METHODS

Three commercial phantoms and a homemade phantom constructed according to the instructions given in the IAEA Human Health Series No. 39 publication were used, along with the respective software that estimate automatically various IQ metrics. Images with various exposure parameters were acquired in a digital radiography (DR) unit. For the commercial phantoms, visual evaluations were also performed. The IQ scores obtained were analyzed to investigate the effects of increasing incident air kerma (IAK), tube potential (kVp), additional filtration, and acquisition protocol on IQ.

RESULTS

The effects of the exposure parameters on the IQ metrics, determined with the commercial and the IAEA phantoms, were not the same. For example, clear trends of improvement of IQ scores with increased IAK and reduction of most IQ scores with increased kVp were observed mostly with the IAEA phantom, but not with the commercial phantoms (for both automatic and visual scoring methods). For all phantoms, the maximum variations in IQ scores observed for repeated identical exposures were almost always below 10% with automatic evaluation whereas, for visual evaluation, reached 17%.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to detect some expected trends with the complex commercial phantoms may be attributed to the fact that IQ in DR is more strongly affected by the post-processing procedures, which may mask the effect of other parameters on IQ, something that was not observed with the simple IAEA phantom.

Image Quality Comparison between Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images and 2D Mammographic Images Using the CDMAM Test Object

To evaluate the image quality (IQ) of synthesized two-dimensional (s2D) and tomographic layer (TL) mammographic images in comparison to the 2D digital mammographic images produced with a new digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) system. Methods: The CDMAM test object was used for IQ evaluation of actual 2D images, s2D and TL images, acquired using all available acquisition modes. Evaluation was performed automatically using the commercial software that accompanied CDMAM. Results: The IQ scores of the TLs with the in-focus CDMAM were comparable, although usually inferior to those of 2D images acquired with the same acquisition mode, and better than the respective s2D images. The IQ results of TLs satisfied the EUREF limits applicable to 2D images, whereas for s2D images this was not the case. The use of high-dose mode (H-mode), instead of normal-dose mode (N-mode), increased the image quality of both TL and s2D images, especially when the standard mode (ST) was used. Although the high-resolution (HR) mode produced TL images of similar or better image quality compared to ST mode, HR s2D images were clearly inferior to ST s2D images. Conclusions: s2D images present inferior image quality compared to 2D and TL images. The HR mode produces TL images and s2D images with half the pixel size and requires a 25% increase in average glandular dose (AGD). Despite that, IQ evaluation results with CDMAM are in favor of HR resolution mode only for TL images and mainly for smaller-sized details.

Conversion factors between human and automatic readouts of CDMAM phantom images of CR mammography systems

In mammography screening, profound assessment of technical image quality is imperative. The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening (EPQCM) suggests using an alternate fixed choice contrast-detail phantom-like CDMAM. For the evaluation of technical image quality, human or automated readouts can be used. For automatic evaluation, a software (cdcom) is provided by EUREF. If the automated readout indicates unacceptable image quality, additional human readout may be performed overriding the automated readout. As the latter systematically results in higher image quality ratings, conversion factors between both methods are regularly applied. Since most image quality issues with mammography systems arise within CR systems, an assessment restricted to CR systems with data from the Austrian Reference Center in the mammography screening program has been conducted. Forty-five CR systems were evaluated. Human readouts were performed with a randomisation software to avoid bias due to learning effects. Additional automatic evaluation allowed for the computation of conversion factors between human and automatic readouts. These factors were substantially lower compared to those suggested by EUREF, namely 1.21 compared to 1.62 (EUREF UK method) and 1.42 (EUREF EU method) for 0.1 mm, and 1.40 compared to 1.83 (EUREF UK) and 1.73 (EUREF EU) for 0.25 mm structure size, respectively. Using either of these factors to adjust patient dose in order to comply with image quality requirements results in differences in the dose increase of up to 90%. This necessitates a consensus on their proper application and limits the validity of the assessment methods. Clear criteria for CR systems based on appropriate studies should be promoted.

On the dose sensitivity of a new CDMAM phantom

For the technical quality assurance of breast cancer screening protocols several phantoms have been developed. Their dose sensitivity is a common topic often discussed in literature. The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening suggests a contrast-detail phantom like the CDMAM phantom (Artinis Medical Systems, Elst, NL). The CDMAM 3.4 was tested with respect to its dose sensitivity and compared to other phantoms in a recent paper. The CDMAM 4.0 phantom provides other disc diameters and thicknesses adapted more closely to the image quality found in modern mammography systems. This motivates a comparison of the two generations using the same exposure parameters. We varied the time-current (mAs) within a range of clinically used values (40-140 mAs). All evaluations were done using automatic evaluation software provided by Artinis (for CDMAM 4.0) and the National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Guildford UK (CDMAM 3.4). We compared the relative dose sensitivity with respect to the different diameters and also computed the IQFinv parameter, which averages over the diameters as suggested in the manual for the phantom. The IQFinv parameter linearly depends on dose for both phantoms. The CDMAM 4.0 shows a more monotonous dependence on dose, the total variation of the threshold thicknesses as functions of the dose are significantly smaller than with the CDMAM 3.4. As the automatic evaluation shows rather different threshold thicknesses for the two phantoms, conversion factors for human to automatic readout have to be adapted.

Dose sensitivity of three phantoms used for quality assurance in digital mammography

Technical quality assurance (QA) is one of the key issues in breast cancer screening protocols. For this QA task, three different methods are commonly used to assess image quality. The European protocol suggests a contrast-detail phantom (e.g. the CDMAM phantom), while in North America the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom is proposed. Alternatively, phantoms based on image quality parameters from applied system theory such as the noise-equivalent number of quanta (NEQ) are applied (e.g. the PAS 1054 phantom). The aim of this paper was to correlate the changes in the output of the three evaluation methods (CDMAM, ACR and NEQ) with changes in dose. We varied the time-current product within a range of clinically used values (40-140 mAs, corresponding to 3.5-12.4 mGy entrance dose and detector dose of 32-110 μGy). For the ACR phantom, the examined parameter was the number of detected objects. With the CDMAM phantom we chose the diameters 0.10, 0.13, 0.20, 0.31 and 0.5 mm and recorded the threshold thicknesses. With respect to the third method, we evaluated the NEQ at typical spatial frequencies to calculate the relative changes in NEQ. Plotting NEQ versus dose increment shows a linear relationship and can be described by a linear function (with R > 0.99). Every manually selectable current- time product increment can be detected. With the ACR phantom, the number of detected objects increases only in the lower dose range and reaches saturation at about 9 mGy entrance dose (80 μGy detector dose). The CDMAM can detect a 50% increase in dose over the examined dose range with all five diameters, although the increases of threshold thickness are not monotonous. We conclude that an NEQ-based method has the potential to replace the established detail phantom methods to detect dose changes in the course of QA.

Comparison of signal to noise ratios from spatial and frequency domain formulations of nonprewhitening model observers in digital mammography

PURPOSE

Image quality indices based upon model observers are promising alternatives to laborious human readings of contrast-detail images. This is especially appealing in digital mammography as limiting values for contrast thresholds determine, according to some international protocols, the acceptability of these systems in the radiological practice. The objective of the present study was to compare the signal to noise ratios (SNR) obtained with two nonprewhitening matched filter model observer approaches, one in the spatial domain and the other in the frequency domain, and with both of them worked out for disks as present in the CDMAM phantom.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using images acquired with the Siemens Novation and Inspiration digital mammography systems. The spatial domain formulation uses a series of high dose CDMAM images as the signal and a routine exposure of two flood images to calculate the covariance matrix. The frequency domain approach uses the mathematical description of a disk and modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise power spectrum (NPS) calculated from images.

RESULTS

For both systems most of the SNR values calculated in the frequency domain were in very good agreement with the SNR values calculated in the spatial domain. Both the formulations in the frequency domain and in the spatial domain show a linear relationship between SNR and the diameter of the CDMAM discs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that both formulations of the model observer lead to very similar figures of merit. This is a step forward in the adoption of figures of merit based on NPS and MTF for the acceptance testing of mammography systems.