Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Digital Imaging logoLink to Journal of Digital Imaging
. 2000 Nov;13(4):191–199. doi: 10.1007/BF03168394

Breast imaging using an amorphous silicon-based full-field digital mammographic system: Stability of a clinical prototype

Srinivasan Vedantham 1,2, Andrew Karellas 1,2,✉, Sankararaman Suryanarayanan 1,2, Carl J D’Orsi 1,2, R Edward Hendrick 1,2
PMCID: PMC3453066  PMID: 11110258

Abstract

An amorphous silicon-based full-breast imager for digital mammography was evaluated for detector stability over a period of 1 year. This imager uses a structured Csl:Tl scintillator coupled to an amorphous silicon layer with a 100-micron pixel pitch and read out by special purpose electronics. The stability of the system was characterized using the following quantifiable metrics: conversion factor (mean number of electrons generated per incident x-ray), presampling modulation transfer function (MTF), detector linearity and sensitivity, defector signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom scores. Qualitative metrics such as flat field uniformity, geometric distortion, and Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) test pattern image quality were also used to study the stability of the system. Observations made over this 1-year period indicated that the maximum variation from the average of the measurements were less than 0.5% for conversion factor, 3% for presampling MTF over all spatial frequencies, 5% for signal response, linearity and sensitivity, 12% for SNR over seven locations for all 3 target-filter combinations, and 0% for ACR accreditation phantom scores. ACR mammographic accreditation phantom images indicated the ability to resolve 5 fibers, 4 speck groups, and 5 masses at a mean glandular dose of 1.23 mGy. The SMPTE pattern image quality test for the display monitors used for image viewing indicated ability to discern all contrast steps and ability to distinguish line-pair images at the center and corners of the image. No bleeding effects were observed in the image. Flat field uniformity for all 3 target-filter combinations displayed no artifacts such as gridlines, bad detector rows or columns, horizontal or vertical streaks, or bad pixels. Wire mesh screen images indicated uniform resolution and no geometric distortion.

Key Words: breast imaging, digital mammography, physics, image quality, flat panel technology, linearity, modulation transfer function

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.7 MB).

Footnotes

This work was supported in part by US Army grant DAMD17-96-C-6104 to the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, and in part by the grant R01CA59770 from the National Cancer Institute to the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The full-field digital mammography detector was developed independently by GE Corporate Research and Development with partial support from the National Cancer Institute grant 5R01CA60183. The contents of this work are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NCI, NIH, or US Army

References

  • 1.Bick U, Giger ML, Schmidt RA, et al. Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms. Radiographics. 1996;16:1403–1411. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.16.6.8946544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kupinski MA, Giger ML. Automated seeded lesion segmentation on digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1998;17:510–517. doi: 10.1109/42.730396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Buchbinder SS, Leichter IS, Bamberger PN, et al. Analysis of clustered microcalcifications by using a single numeric classifier extracted from mammographic digital images. Acad Radiol. 1998;5:779–784. doi: 10.1016/S1076-6332(98)80262-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Anastasio MA, Yoshida H, Nagel R, et al. A genetic algorithm-based method for optimizing the performance of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of clustered microcalcifications in mammograms. Med Phys. 1998;25:1613–1620. doi: 10.1118/1.598341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wei D, Chan HP, Petrick N, et al. False-positive reduction technique for detection of masses on digital mammograms: Global and local multiresolution texture analysis. Med Phys. 1997;24:903–914. doi: 10.1118/1.598011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yoshida H, Doi K, Nishikawa RM, et al. An improved computer-assisted diagnostic scheme using wavelet transform for detecting clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms. Acad Radiol. 1996;3:621–627. doi: 10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80186-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kallergi M, Carney GM, Gaviria J. Evaluating the performance of detection algorithms in digital mammography. Med Phys. 1999;26:267–275. doi: 10.1118/1.598514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205:399–406. doi: 10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ruttimann UE, Groenhuis RAJ, Webber RL. Restoration of digital multiplane tomosynthesis by a constrained iteration method. IEEE Trans Med Imaging MI. 1984;3:141–148. doi: 10.1109/TMI.1984.4307670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, et al: Tomosynthesis reconstruction methods for digital mammography. Biomedical imaging symposium: Visualizing the future of biology and medicine, National Institute of Health, June 25–26, Bethesda, MD, 1999
  • 11.Glick SJ, Karellas A, Vedantham S, et al. Iterative reconstruction for limited angle tomographic digital mammography. Radiology. 1998;209P:159–159. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Flanagan FL, Murray JG, Gilligan P, et al. Digital subtraction in Gd-DTPA enhanced imaging of the breast. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:848–854. doi: 10.1016/S0009-9260(05)83106-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chakraborty DP, Barnes GT. An energy sensitive cassette for dual-energy mammography. Med Phys. 1989;16:7–13. doi: 10.1118/1.596406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Asaga T, Chiyasu S, Mastuda S, et al. Breast imaging: Dual-energy projection radiography with digital radiography. Radiology. 1987;164:869–870. doi: 10.1148/radiology.164.3.3303124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Holdsworth DW, Gerson RK, Fenster A. A time-delay integration charge-coupled device camera for slot-scanned digital radiography. Med Phys. 1990;17:876–886. doi: 10.1118/1.596578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nishikawa RM, Mawdsley GE, Fenster A, et al. Scanned-projection digital mammography. Med Phys. 1987;14:717–727. doi: 10.1118/1.596147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Karellas A, Harris LJ, Liu H, et al. Charge-coupled device detector: Performance considerations and potential for small-field mammographic imaging applications. Med Phys. 1992;19:1015–1023. doi: 10.1118/1.596819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hejazi S, Trauernicht DP. System considerations in CCD-based x-ray imaging for digital chest radiography and digital mammography. Med Phys. 1997;24:287–297. doi: 10.1118/1.598072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vedantham S, Levis I, Karellas A, et al. Characterization of a clinical prototype small-format CCD-based cassette for digital mammography. Radiology. 1998;209P:160–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kimme-Smith C, Lewis C, Beifuss M, et al. Establishing minimum performance standards, calibration intervals, and optimal exposure values for a whole breast digital mammography unit. Med Phys. 1998;25:2410–2416. doi: 10.1118/1.598452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Siewerdsen JH, Antonuk LE, El-Mohri Y, et al. 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. doi: 10.1118/1.597919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Antonuk LE, El-Mohri Y, Jee K, et al. Performance evaluation of a large area, 97 μm pitch: Indirect detection active matrix flat-panel imager (AMFPI) for radiography and fluoroscopy. Radiology. 1998;209P:357–357. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Antonuk LE, El-Mohri Y, Jee K, et al. Performance limits of high resolution large area active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) Radiology. 1998;209P:581–581. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Antonuk LE, Jee K, El-Mohri Y, et al. Strategies to significantly enhance performance of active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) Radiology. 1998;209P:358–358. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rougeot HM, Opsahl-Ong B, Castleberry DE, et al. Performance evaluation of a flat-panel filmless full-field digital mammography system. Radiology. 1996;201P:190–190. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, et al. Full breast digital mammographic imaging with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: Physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys. 2000;27:558–567. doi: 10.1118/1.598895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Karellas A, Vedantham S, Levis I, et al. Evaluation of a full-field clinical prototype flat panel imager for digital mammography. Radiology. 1998;209P:159–159. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Neitzel U, Maack I, Gunther-Kohfahl S. Image quality of a digital chest radiography system based on a selenium detector. Med Phys. 1994;21:509–516. doi: 10.1118/1.597389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhao W, Rowlands JA. Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: Theoretical analysis of detective quantum efficiency. Med Phys. 1997;24:1819–1833. doi: 10.1118/1.598097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Garverick SL, Skrenes L, Baertsch RD. A 32-channel charge readout IC for programmable, nonlinear quantization of multichannel detector data. IEEE J of Solid-State Circuits. 1995;30:533–541. doi: 10.1109/4.384166. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fujita H, Tsai DY, Itoh T, et al. A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital radiography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging MI. 1992;11:34–39. doi: 10.1109/42.126908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.American College of Radiology: Mammography Quality Control Manual, Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography, American College of Radiology, 1999
  • 33.Nawfel RD, Chan KH, Wagenaar DJ, et al. Evaluation of video gray-scale display. Med Phys. 1992;19:561–567. doi: 10.1118/1.596846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of a full-field digital mammography prototype for cancer detection in a screening setting —Work in progress. Radiology. 1998;209P:238–238. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Moss L, D’Orsi CJ, Karellas A, et al. Initial experience with a high resolution full field digital mammographic system. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11:110–110. doi: 10.1007/BF03168274. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Moore RH, Kopans DB, Niklason LT, et al. Initial clinical experience with full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 1997;205P:274–274. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Digital Imaging are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES