A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms

P E Undrill, A D O'Kane, F J Gilbert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AIM: To compare the performance of a direct digital mammography system with normal-view and magnified-view conventional screen-film methods using quality control phantoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Siemens Mammomat(R) 3000 and an Opdima(R) digital spot imaging and biopsy attachment, film and direct digital images of two phantoms [DuPont and TOR (MAM)] were obtained under normal operating conditions. These were assessed by three groups of observers with differing expertise - radiologists, radiographers and medical physicists. Each observer was asked to compare the direct digital image with films taken in standard view and magnified view, providing scores for object visibility and confidence. For the digital images, observers were allowed to vary the image presentation parameters.

RESULTS: Both phantoms showed that overall the direct digital view and the magnified view film performed significantly better (P < 0.05) than standard view film. For certain small or low contrast objects the differences became very highly significant (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Only the TOR (MAM) phantom showed any significant difference between digital and magnified modalities, with magnified views performing better for fine, faint filaments and digital acquisition better for low contrast objects. Almost no difference existed between the three observer groups. Undrill, P. E. et al. (2000). Clinical Radiology 53, 782-790. (C) 2000 The Royal College of Radiologists.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)782-790
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Radiology
Volume55
Publication statusPublished - 2000

Keywords

  • digital mammography
  • quality assurance
  • phantom assessment
  • observer studies
  • COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS
  • STORAGE PHOSPHOR
  • TEST OBJECT
  • PERFORMANCE
  • IMAGES
  • MICROCALCIFICATIONS

Cite this

Undrill, P. E., O'Kane, A. D., & Gilbert, F. J. (2000). A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms. Clinical Radiology, 55, 782-790.

A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms. / Undrill, P E ; O'Kane, A D ; Gilbert, F J .

In: Clinical Radiology, Vol. 55, 2000, p. 782-790.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Undrill, PE, O'Kane, AD & Gilbert, FJ 2000, 'A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms', Clinical Radiology, vol. 55, pp. 782-790.
Undrill, P E ; O'Kane, A D ; Gilbert, F J . / A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms. In: Clinical Radiology. 2000 ; Vol. 55. pp. 782-790.
@article{50f21034fd3b45eeb518f746ffa74641,
title = "A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms",
abstract = "AIM: To compare the performance of a direct digital mammography system with normal-view and magnified-view conventional screen-film methods using quality control phantoms.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Siemens Mammomat(R) 3000 and an Opdima(R) digital spot imaging and biopsy attachment, film and direct digital images of two phantoms [DuPont and TOR (MAM)] were obtained under normal operating conditions. These were assessed by three groups of observers with differing expertise - radiologists, radiographers and medical physicists. Each observer was asked to compare the direct digital image with films taken in standard view and magnified view, providing scores for object visibility and confidence. For the digital images, observers were allowed to vary the image presentation parameters.RESULTS: Both phantoms showed that overall the direct digital view and the magnified view film performed significantly better (P < 0.05) than standard view film. For certain small or low contrast objects the differences became very highly significant (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: Only the TOR (MAM) phantom showed any significant difference between digital and magnified modalities, with magnified views performing better for fine, faint filaments and digital acquisition better for low contrast objects. Almost no difference existed between the three observer groups. Undrill, P. E. et al. (2000). Clinical Radiology 53, 782-790. (C) 2000 The Royal College of Radiologists.",
keywords = "digital mammography, quality assurance, phantom assessment, observer studies, COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS, STORAGE PHOSPHOR, TEST OBJECT, PERFORMANCE, IMAGES, MICROCALCIFICATIONS",
author = "Undrill, {P E} and O'Kane, {A D} and Gilbert, {F J}",
year = "2000",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "782--790",
journal = "Clinical Radiology",
issn = "0009-9260",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms

AU - Undrill, P E

AU - O'Kane, A D

AU - Gilbert, F J

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - AIM: To compare the performance of a direct digital mammography system with normal-view and magnified-view conventional screen-film methods using quality control phantoms.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Siemens Mammomat(R) 3000 and an Opdima(R) digital spot imaging and biopsy attachment, film and direct digital images of two phantoms [DuPont and TOR (MAM)] were obtained under normal operating conditions. These were assessed by three groups of observers with differing expertise - radiologists, radiographers and medical physicists. Each observer was asked to compare the direct digital image with films taken in standard view and magnified view, providing scores for object visibility and confidence. For the digital images, observers were allowed to vary the image presentation parameters.RESULTS: Both phantoms showed that overall the direct digital view and the magnified view film performed significantly better (P < 0.05) than standard view film. For certain small or low contrast objects the differences became very highly significant (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: Only the TOR (MAM) phantom showed any significant difference between digital and magnified modalities, with magnified views performing better for fine, faint filaments and digital acquisition better for low contrast objects. Almost no difference existed between the three observer groups. Undrill, P. E. et al. (2000). Clinical Radiology 53, 782-790. (C) 2000 The Royal College of Radiologists.

AB - AIM: To compare the performance of a direct digital mammography system with normal-view and magnified-view conventional screen-film methods using quality control phantoms.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Siemens Mammomat(R) 3000 and an Opdima(R) digital spot imaging and biopsy attachment, film and direct digital images of two phantoms [DuPont and TOR (MAM)] were obtained under normal operating conditions. These were assessed by three groups of observers with differing expertise - radiologists, radiographers and medical physicists. Each observer was asked to compare the direct digital image with films taken in standard view and magnified view, providing scores for object visibility and confidence. For the digital images, observers were allowed to vary the image presentation parameters.RESULTS: Both phantoms showed that overall the direct digital view and the magnified view film performed significantly better (P < 0.05) than standard view film. For certain small or low contrast objects the differences became very highly significant (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: Only the TOR (MAM) phantom showed any significant difference between digital and magnified modalities, with magnified views performing better for fine, faint filaments and digital acquisition better for low contrast objects. Almost no difference existed between the three observer groups. Undrill, P. E. et al. (2000). Clinical Radiology 53, 782-790. (C) 2000 The Royal College of Radiologists.

KW - digital mammography

KW - quality assurance

KW - phantom assessment

KW - observer studies

KW - COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS

KW - STORAGE PHOSPHOR

KW - TEST OBJECT

KW - PERFORMANCE

KW - IMAGES

KW - MICROCALCIFICATIONS

M3 - Article

VL - 55

SP - 782

EP - 790

JO - Clinical Radiology

JF - Clinical Radiology

SN - 0009-9260

ER -