Characterization of on-site digital mammography systems: Direct versus indirect conversion detectors

被引:11
作者
Youn, Hanbean [1 ]
Han, Jong Chul [1 ]
Yun, Seungman [1 ]
Kam, Soohwa [1 ]
Cho, Seungryong [2 ]
Kim, Ho Kyung [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Pusan Natl Univ, Sch Mech Engn, Busan 609735, South Korea
[2] Korea Adv Inst Sci & Technol, Dept Nucl & Quantum Engn, Taejon 305701, South Korea
[3] Pusan Natl Univ, Ctr Adv Med Engn Res, Busan 609735, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
Digital mammography; Cesium iodide; Amorphous selenium; MTF; NPS; DQE; Contrast; MODULATION TRANSFER-FUNCTION; PHYSICAL-CHARACTERISTICS; IMAGING PERFORMANCE; FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; RAY; SIGNAL; RESOLUTION; MTF;
D O I
10.3938/jkps.66.1926
中图分类号
O4 [物理学];
学科分类号
0702 ;
摘要
We investigated the performances of two digital mammography systems. The systems use a cesium-iodide (CsI) scintillator and an amorphous selenium (a-Se) photoconductor for X-ray detection and are installed in the same hospital. As physical metrics, we measured the modulationtransfer function (MTF), the noise-power spectrum (NPS), and the detective quantum efficiency (DQE). In addition, we analyzed the contrast-detail performances of the two systems by using a commercial contrast-detail phantom. The CsI-based indirect conversion detector provided better MTF and DQE performances than the a-Se-based direct conversion detector whereas the former provided a poorer NPS performance than the latter. These results are explained by the fact that the CsI-based detector used an MTF restoration preprocessing algorithm. The a-Se-based detector showed better contrast-detail performance than the CsI-based detector. We believe that the highfrequency noise characteristic of a detector is more responsible for the visibility of small details than its spatial-resolution performance.
引用
收藏
页码:1926 / 1935
页数:10
相关论文
共 40 条
  • [1] Oblique incidence effects in direct x-ray detectors: A first-order approximation using a physics-based analytical model
    Badano, Aldo
    Freed, Melanie
    Fang, Yuan
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (04) : 2095 - 2098
  • [2] Boone J.M., 2000, HDB MED IMAGING, P1, DOI [10.1117/3.832716.ch1, DOI 10.1117/3.832716.CH1]
  • [3] Bushberg J.T., 2012, ESSENTIAL PHYS MED I, V3
  • [4] Measurements of X-ray imaging performance of granular phosphors with direct-coupled CMOS sensors
    Cho, Min Kook
    Kim, Ho Kyung
    Graeve, Thorsten
    Yum, Seung Man
    Lim, Chang Hwy
    Cho, Hyosung
    Kim, Jung-Min
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, 2008, 55 (03) : 1338 - 1343
  • [5] Cunnigham I.A., 2000, Handbook of medical imaging, V1, P79
  • [6] Signal-to-noise optimization of medical imaging systems
    Cunningham, IA
    Shaw, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA A-OPTICS IMAGE SCIENCE AND VISION, 1999, 16 (03): : 621 - 632
  • [7] Dobbins J.T., 2000, HDB MED IMAGING, P161, DOI DOI 10.1117/3.832716.CH3
  • [8] EFFECTS OF UNDERSAMPLING ON THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF MODULATION TRANSFER-FUNCTION, NOISE POWER SPECTRA, AND NOISE EQUIVALENT QUANTA OF DIGITAL IMAGING-SYSTEMS
    DOBBINS, JT
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1995, 22 (02) : 171 - 181
  • [9] Normalization of the modulation transfer function: The open-field approach
    Friedman, S. N.
    Cunningham, I. A.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (10) : 4443 - 4449
  • [10] Comparison of Acquisition Parameters and Breast Dose in Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial
    Hendrick, R. Edward
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Averbukh, Alice
    Moran, Catherine
    Berns, Eric A.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    Herman, Benjamin
    Acharyya, Suddhasatta
    Gatsonis, Constantine
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2010, 194 (02) : 362 - 369