+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?



How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?



Academic Radiology 9(7): 764-772



The purpose of this study was to evaluate the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography. Digital images were obtained of an ACR accreditation phantom at varying mAs (constant kVp) and varying kVp (constant mAs). The average glandular dose for a breast with 50% glandularity was determined for each technique factor. Images were displayed on a 5 mega-pixel monitor, with the window width and level settings individually optimized for viewing the fibers, specks, and masses in the ACR phantom. Digital images of the ACR phantom were presented in a random manner to eight observers, each of whom indicated the number of objects visible in each image. Intraobserver variability was greater than interobserver variability for the detection of fibers and specks, but the reverse was true for the detection of masses. As the mAs increased, the number of fibers visible increased from less than one at 5 mAs to all six being visible at 80 mAs. The corresponding number of visible specks increased from 12 to 24, and the number of visible masses increased from 1.25 to about four. Above 26 kVp, object visibility was constant with increasing x-ray tube voltage. Reducing the x-ray tube voltage to 24 kVp, however, reduced the number of visible fibers from six to five, the number of visible specks from 24 to 21.1, and the number of visible masses from four to 3.1. Observer performance was approximately constant for average glandular doses greater than 1.6 mGy, so that the range of lesion detectability in the ACR phantom occurs at doses lower than those normally encountered in clinical practice. The current design of the ACR phantom is unsatisfactory for assessing image quality in digital mammography.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 046279102

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 12139090

DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80345-8


Related references

Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom. Korean Journal of Radiology 13(6): 776-783, 2013

Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. European Journal of Radiology 67(3): 487-496, 2008

A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 49(23): 5267-5281, 2004

Optimization of viewing conditions and phantom image quality evaluations on GE DMR and full-field digital mammography system. Journal of Digital Imaging 13(2 Suppl 1): 226-227, 2000

Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom. Ajr. American Journal of Roentgenology 191(3): W80-W88, 2008

Accelerating Monte Carlo image reconstruction of a PMMA phantom through variance reduction techniques for quality control in digital mammography. Conference Proceedings 3: 3344-3347, 2005

Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Analog Screen-Film Technique Using a Low-Contrast Phantom. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 20(3): 271-273, 2009

Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model. Ajr. American Journal of Roentgenology 188(2): 399-407, 2007

Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an indirect small-field CCD technique using a high-contrast phantom. International Journal of Breast Cancer 2011: 701054, 2011

Comparison of Image Quality Criteria between Digital Storage Phosphor Plate in Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography in the Detection of Breast Cancer. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences 19(1): 52-59, 2012

Impact of CT parameters on the physical quantities related to image quality for two MDCT scanners using the ACR accreditation phantom: A phantom study. Radiography 23(3): 202-210, 2017

Quantitative analysis of radiation dosage and image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional synthetic mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Clinical Imaging 55: 12-17, 2019

Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images. Medical Physics 24(8): 1269-1277, 1997

Image quality assessment via segmentation of breast lesion in X-ray and ultrasound phantom images from Fischer's full field digital mammography and ultrasound (FFDMUS) system. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment 4(1): 83-92, 2005

A survey on performance status of mammography machines: image quality and dosimetry studies using a standard mammography imaging phantom. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 150(3): 325-333, 2012