Cargando…

Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom

OBJECTIVE: To compare between the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom and digital mammography accreditation phantom in assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each week throughout the 42-week study, we obtained phantom ima...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Song, Sung Eun, Seo, Bo Kyoung, Yie, An, Ku, Bon Kyung, Kim, Hee-Young, Cho, Kyu Ran, Chung, Hwan Hoon, Lee, Seung Hwa, Hwang, Kyu-Won
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Radiology 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23118577
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.6.776
_version_ 1782248128693403648
author Song, Sung Eun
Seo, Bo Kyoung
Yie, An
Ku, Bon Kyung
Kim, Hee-Young
Cho, Kyu Ran
Chung, Hwan Hoon
Lee, Seung Hwa
Hwang, Kyu-Won
author_facet Song, Sung Eun
Seo, Bo Kyoung
Yie, An
Ku, Bon Kyung
Kim, Hee-Young
Cho, Kyu Ran
Chung, Hwan Hoon
Lee, Seung Hwa
Hwang, Kyu-Won
author_sort Song, Sung Eun
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare between the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom and digital mammography accreditation phantom in assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each week throughout the 42-week study, we obtained phantom images using both the ACR accreditation phantom and the digital mammography accreditation phantom, and a total of 42 pairs of images were included in this study. We assessed the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in each phantom image. A radiologist drew a square-shaped region of interest on the phantom and then the mean value of the SNR and the standard deviation were automatically provided on a monitor. SNR was calculated by an equation, measured mean value of SNR-constant coefficient of FFDM/standard deviation. Two breast radiologists scored visible objects (fibers, specks, and masses) with soft-copy images and calculated the visible rate (number of visible objects/total number of objects). We compared SNR and the visible rate of objects between the two phantoms and calculated the k-coefficient for interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The SNR of the ACR accreditation phantom ranged from 42.0 to 52.9 (Mean, 47.3 ± 2.79) and that of Digital Phantom ranged from 24.8 to 54.0 (Mean, 44.1 ± 9.93) (p = 0.028). The visible rates of all three types of objects were much higher in the ACR accreditation phantom than those in the digital mammography accreditation phantom (p < 0.05). Interobserver agreement for visible rates of objects on phantom images was fair to moderate agreement (k-coefficients: 0.34-0.57). CONCLUSION: The ACR accreditation phantom is superior to the digital mammography accreditation phantom in terms of SNR and visibility of phantom objects. Thus, ACR accreditation phantom appears to be satisfactory for assessing the image quality in FFDM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3484299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher The Korean Society of Radiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34842992012-11-02 Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom Song, Sung Eun Seo, Bo Kyoung Yie, An Ku, Bon Kyung Kim, Hee-Young Cho, Kyu Ran Chung, Hwan Hoon Lee, Seung Hwa Hwang, Kyu-Won Korean J Radiol Original Article OBJECTIVE: To compare between the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom and digital mammography accreditation phantom in assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each week throughout the 42-week study, we obtained phantom images using both the ACR accreditation phantom and the digital mammography accreditation phantom, and a total of 42 pairs of images were included in this study. We assessed the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in each phantom image. A radiologist drew a square-shaped region of interest on the phantom and then the mean value of the SNR and the standard deviation were automatically provided on a monitor. SNR was calculated by an equation, measured mean value of SNR-constant coefficient of FFDM/standard deviation. Two breast radiologists scored visible objects (fibers, specks, and masses) with soft-copy images and calculated the visible rate (number of visible objects/total number of objects). We compared SNR and the visible rate of objects between the two phantoms and calculated the k-coefficient for interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The SNR of the ACR accreditation phantom ranged from 42.0 to 52.9 (Mean, 47.3 ± 2.79) and that of Digital Phantom ranged from 24.8 to 54.0 (Mean, 44.1 ± 9.93) (p = 0.028). The visible rates of all three types of objects were much higher in the ACR accreditation phantom than those in the digital mammography accreditation phantom (p < 0.05). Interobserver agreement for visible rates of objects on phantom images was fair to moderate agreement (k-coefficients: 0.34-0.57). CONCLUSION: The ACR accreditation phantom is superior to the digital mammography accreditation phantom in terms of SNR and visibility of phantom objects. Thus, ACR accreditation phantom appears to be satisfactory for assessing the image quality in FFDM. The Korean Society of Radiology 2012 2012-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3484299/ /pubmed/23118577 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.6.776 Text en Copyright © 2012 The Korean Society of Radiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Song, Sung Eun
Seo, Bo Kyoung
Yie, An
Ku, Bon Kyung
Kim, Hee-Young
Cho, Kyu Ran
Chung, Hwan Hoon
Lee, Seung Hwa
Hwang, Kyu-Won
Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom
title Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom
title_full Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom
title_fullStr Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom
title_full_unstemmed Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom
title_short Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom
title_sort which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: american college of radiology accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23118577
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.6.776
work_keys_str_mv AT songsungeun whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom
AT seobokyoung whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom
AT yiean whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom
AT kubonkyung whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom
AT kimheeyoung whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom
AT chokyuran whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom
AT chunghwanhoon whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom
AT leeseunghwa whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom
AT hwangkyuwon whichphantomisbetterforassessingtheimagequalityinfullfielddigitalmammographyamericancollegeofradiologyaccreditationphantomversusdigitalmammographyaccreditationphantom