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

Sung Eun Song, Bo Kyoung Seo, An Yie, Bon Kyung Ku, Hee Young Kim, Kyu Ran Cho, Hwan Hoon Chung, Seung Hwa Lee, Kyu Won Hwang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)776-783
Number of pages8
JournalKorean Journal of Radiology
Volume13
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012 Nov 1

Fingerprint

Accreditation
Mammography
Radiology
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Breast

Keywords

  • Breast
  • Comparative study
  • Imaging
  • Mammography
  • Phantoms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{57960d85a91e4c7a80d6afa337778e43,
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",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Breast, Comparative study, Imaging, Mammography, Phantoms",
author = "Song, {Sung Eun} and Seo, {Bo Kyoung} and An Yie and Ku, {Bon Kyung} and Kim, {Hee Young} and Cho, {Kyu Ran} and Chung, {Hwan Hoon} and Lee, {Seung Hwa} and Hwang, {Kyu Won}",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3348/kjr.2012.13.6.776",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "776--783",
journal = "Korean Journal of Radiology",
issn = "1229-6929",
publisher = "Korean Radiological Society",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?

T2 - American College of Radiology accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom

AU - Song, Sung Eun

AU - Seo, Bo Kyoung

AU - Yie, An

AU - Ku, Bon Kyung

AU - Kim, Hee Young

AU - Cho, Kyu Ran

AU - Chung, Hwan Hoon

AU - Lee, Seung Hwa

AU - Hwang, Kyu Won

PY - 2012/11/1

Y1 - 2012/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Breast

KW - Comparative study

KW - Imaging

KW - Mammography

KW - Phantoms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868333699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84868333699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3348/kjr.2012.13.6.776

DO - 10.3348/kjr.2012.13.6.776

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 776

EP - 783

JO - Korean Journal of Radiology

JF - Korean Journal of Radiology

SN - 1229-6929

IS - 6

ER -