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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |