Home > Archives > IJSRST173718 IJSRST-Library

Quantitative Assessment of Image Quality in Mammography : Results from Phantom Studies in Ghana

Authors(3) :-Edem Sosu, Mary Boadu, Samuel Yeboah Mensah

Quantitative image quality assessment have been undertaken on eight (A - H) mammography systems in Ghana to review the overall condition of mammography equipment with respect to image quality in order to suggest improvements in the practice. Quantitative image analysis was performed with ImageJ software using the "Rose Model" by simulating three different thicknesses of breast. The results from calculated values of signal - to - noise ratio (SNR) shows that the quality of images from three systems for all three thickness were of good quality. All images from the test on the 20 mm phantom were all of good quality. Three systems recorded good images for the 45 mm phantom. Two systems recorded poor image quality for the 45 mm phantom. Images of the 70 mm phantom from five systems were of poor quality. Results shows that images of thicker simulated breast recorded poorest quality. It is recommended that adequate compression is achieved before patients are exposed.
Edem Sosu, Mary Boadu, Samuel Yeboah Mensah
Mammography, Image Quality, Phantom, Signal, Noise, Ratio, Polymethylmethacrylate
  1. IAEA. (2005). Optimization of the radiological protection of patients: image quality and dose in mammography (coordinated research in Europe). IAEA-TECDOC-1447. Vienna: Internationa Atomic Energy Agency.
  2. IPEM. (2005). The commissioning and routine testing of mammographic X - ray systems. IPEM Report 89. York, UK: Institute for Physics and Engineering in Medicine.
  3. Masselink, W. S. (2005). National Breast Screening Programmes. The Trinity Student Medical Journal, 6, 17 - 21.
  4. B. Nielson. (1987). Image quality in mammography: physical and?? technical limitations. Recent results in cancer research. Breast Cancer - Present prespective of early diagnosis. Chapter 1. Volume 105, Pages 1 - 14
  5. Sandborg Michael, Tingberg Anders, Ullman Gustaf, Dance David R and Carlsson Gudrun Alm. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages. Med. Phys. 33(11) 4169?4175 (2006)
  6. Yaffe, M. J., Bunch, P. C., Desponds, L., Jong, R. A., Nishikawa, R. M., Tapiovaara, M. J., & Young, K. C. (2009). Mammography - Assessment of Image Quality. Technical Aspects of Image Quality in Mammography. Journal of International Commission on Radiation Units , Volume 9, ( Issue 2), Pages 33-51. doi:doi.org/10.1093/jicru/ndp021
  7. de Paredes E S, Fatouros P P, Thunberg S, Cousins J F, Wilson J and Sedgwick T 1998 Evaluation of a digital spot mammographic unit using a contrast detail phantom. In Digital Mammography. The 4th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, IWDM 1998, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Edited by Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M, Hendriks J and van Erning L Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 47-50
  8. Young K C, Alsager A, Oduko J M, Bosmans H, Verbrugge B, Geertse T and van Engen R 2008a Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. In: Medical Imaging 2008: Physics of medical imaging (Ed by J Hsieh, E Samei) Proc SPIE 6913
  9. Rose A 1948 The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J Opt Soc Am 38 196-208
  10. Burgess A. E, Jacobson F L and Judy P F 2001 Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power?law noise Med Phys, 28, 419?37
  11. Ruschin M, Timberg P, Svahn T, Andersson I, Hemdal B, Mattsson S, B?th M, Tingberg A 2007 Improved in-plane visibility of tumors using breast tomosynthesis In: Medical imaging 2007: Physics of medical imaging (Ed by J Hsieh, M J Flynn) Proc SPIE 6510 65104R
  12. Mansson L G, B?th M and Mattsson S 2005 Priorities in optimisation of medical Xray imaging - a contribution to the debate Radiation Protection Dosimetry 114 (1-3) 298-302
  13. EC (2006). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (fourth edn.) European Commission, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
  14. Young K C, Oduko J M, Gundogdu O and Alsager A 2008b "Comparing the performance of digital mammography systems." In: Eds. Krupinski EA, Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on digital mammography, IWDM. Tucson, Arizona, USA: Springer verlag Berlin, 732-739
  15. Rose A., "Quantum and noise limitations of the visual process,” Journal of Optical Society of America Volume 43, Pages 715-716 (1953).
  16. Cunningham I.A. and Shaw R., Signal-to-noise optimization of medical imaging systems Journal of Optical Society of America Volume 16, No. 3, March 1999. Pages 621-632
  17. IAEA. (2001). Human Health Series No. 17 - Quality Assurance programme in Digital Mammography. Vienna, Austria: IAEA. Page 87 - 92
Publication Details
  Published in : Volume 3 | Issue 7 | September-October 2017
  Date of Publication : 2017-10-31
License:  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Page(s) : 73-77
Manuscript Number : IJSRST173718
Publisher : Technoscience Academy
PRINT ISSN : 2395-6011
ONLINE ISSN : 2395-602X
Cite This Article :
Edem Sosu, Mary Boadu, Samuel Yeboah Mensah, "Quantitative Assessment of Image Quality in Mammography : Results from Phantom Studies in Ghana", International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Print ISSN : 2395-6011, Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Volume 3, Issue 7, pp.73-77, September-October-2017
URL : http://ijsrst.com/IJSRST173718