Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis

Affiliations


Abstract

Aim: This study was undertaken to compare the two image-quality phantoms commonly used in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) imaging.

Methods: Mammography units with two targets and three filters resulting in three possible target/filter combinations and two kVp values which are widely used (28 and 32) were used for the comparison. The automatic exposure control system was used in combination with the selected kVp. The CIRS 15 mammographic accreditation phantom (MAP) and CIRS 20 (BR3D) breast imaging phantom were used with the three target/filter combinations and two kVp values. A total of 24 images were acquired and evaluated. Image score was determined as the smallest sized object detectable. The data were analyzed by using Mann-Whitney test.

Results: There were significant (p<0.001) differences between the detectability of fibers present in the two phantoms, but there were no differences in the detectability of specks.

Conclusion: The finding in FFDM and DBT showed there were significant differences between the two phantoms (p<0.02) in fibers and specks visibility. The CIRS 20 phantom provided greater visibility of smaller structures, while the MAP was more suitable for assessing image quality of both FFDM and DBT imaging systems.


Similar articles

Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.

Peters S, Hellmich M, Stork A, Kemper J, Grinstein O, PĆ¼sken M, Stahlhut L, Kinner S, Maintz D, Krug KB.Invest Radiol. 2017 Apr;52(4):206-215. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000334.PMID: 27861206

Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.

Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Marshall NW.Med Phys. 2013 Aug;40(8):081920. doi: 10.1118/1.4816309.PMID: 23927334

How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?

Nelson JS, Wells JR, Baker JA, Samei E.Med Phys. 2016 May;43(5):2538. doi: 10.1118/1.4947293.PMID: 27147364

Digital breast tomosynthesis in one or two views as a replacement or adjunct technique to full-field digital mammography.

Svahn TM, Houssami N.Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015 Jul;165(1-4):314-20. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv078. Epub 2015 Apr 5.PMID: 25848107 Review.

Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.

Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S.Breast. 2015 Apr;24(2):93-9. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002. Epub 2014 Dec 29.PMID: 25554018 Free PMC article. Review.


KMEL References