Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

New conversion factors between human and automatic readouts of the CDMAM phantom for CR systems
Author(s): Johann Hummel; Peter Homolka; Angelika Osanna-Elliot; Marcus Kaar; Friedrich Semtrus; 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

Mammography screenings demand for profound image quality (IQ) assessment to guarantee their screening success. The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening (EPQCM) suggests a contrast detail phantom such as the CDMAM phantom to evaluate IQ. For automatic evaluation a software is provided by the EUREF. As human and automatic readouts differ systematically conversion factors were published by the official reference organisation (EUREF). As we experienced a significant difference for these factors for Computed Radiography (CR) systems we developed an objectifying analysis software which presents the cells including the gold disks randomly in thickness and rotation. This allows to overcome the problem of an inevitable learning effect where observers know the position of the disks in advance. Applying this software, 45 computed radiography (CR) systems were evaluated and the conversion factors between human and automatic readout determined. The resulting conversion factors were compared with the ones resulting from the two methods published by EUREF. We found our conversion factors to be substantially lower than those suggested by EUREF, in particular 1.21 compared to 1.42 (EUREF EU method) and 1.62 (EUREF UK method) for 0.1 mm, and 1.40 compared to 1.73 (EUREF EU) and 1.83 (EUREF UK) for 0.25 mm disc diameter, respectively. This can result in a dose increase of up to 90% using either of these factors to adjust patient dose in order to fulfill image quality requirements. This suggests the need of an agreement on their proper application and limits the validity of the assessment methods. Therefore, we want to stress the need for clear criteria for CR systems based on appropriate studies.

Paper Details

Date Published: 24 March 2016
PDF: 6 pages
Proc. SPIE 9787, Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 97871H (24 March 2016); doi: 10.1117/12.2216694
Show Author Affiliations
Johann Hummel, Medizinische Univ. Wien (Austria)
Peter Homolka, Medizinische Univ. Wien (Austria)
Angelika Osanna-Elliot, Mammography Screening Reference Ctr. for Technical Quality Control (Austria)
Marcus Kaar, Medizinische Univ. Wien (Austria)
Friedrich Semtrus, Mammography Screening Reference Ctr. for Technical Quality Control (Austria)
Michael Figl, Medizinische Univ. Wien (Austria)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 9787:
Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Craig K. Abbey; Matthew A. Kupinski, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top