Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Comparison of two CDMAM generations with respect to dose sensitivity
Author(s): Johann Hummel; Marcus Kaar; Marianne Floor; Roeland van der Burght; Friedrich Semturs; Michael Figl
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

A contrast-detail phantom like the CDMAM phantom (Artinis Medical Systems, Zetten, NL) is suggested by the ’European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening’ to evaluate image quality of digital mammography systems. In a recent paper the commonly used CDMAM 3.4 was evaluated according to its dose sensitivity in comparison to other phantoms. The successor phantom (CDMAM 4.0) features other disc diameters and thicknesses that were adapted to be more closely to the image quality which can be found in modern mammography systems. It seems to be obvious to compare this two generations of phantoms with respect to a potential improvement. The time-current product was varied within a range of clinically used values (40-160 mAs). Image evaluation was performed using the automatic evaluation software provided by Artinis. The relative dose sensitivity was compared in dependence of different diameters. Additionally, the IQFinv parameter, which averages over the diameters was computed to get a more global conclusion. We found that the dose is of a considerable smoother dependence with the CMDAM 4.0 phantom. Also the IQFinv parameter shows a more linear behaviour than with the CDMAM 3.4. As the automatic evaluation shows different results on the two phantoms, conversion factors from automatic to human readouts have to be adapted consequently.

Paper Details

Date Published: 18 March 2015
PDF: 6 pages
Proc. SPIE 9412, Medical Imaging 2015: Physics of Medical Imaging, 94125H (18 March 2015); doi: 10.1117/12.2081900
Show Author Affiliations
Johann Hummel, Medical Univ. of Vienna (Austria)
Marcus Kaar, Medical Univ. of Vienna (Austria)
Marianne Floor, Artinis Medical Systems Corp. (Netherlands)
Roeland van der Burght, Artinis Medical Systems Corp. (Netherlands)
Friedrich Semturs, Medical Univ. of Vienna (Austria)
Michael Figl, Medical Univ. of Vienna (Austria)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 9412:
Medical Imaging 2015: Physics of Medical Imaging
Christoph Hoeschen; Despina Kontos, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top