Comparison of several methodologies for MTF calculation in mammography using a new software (CC_dm)
Keywords:
Mammography, MTF, IEC, plugin, ImageJAbstract
In the present study a brief introduction to a newly developed ImageJ plug-in (CC_dm) utilized for the calculation of the modulation transfer function, MTF, in mammography using the methodology appearing in the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) document 62220 1-2:2007 is presented. The study aims to highlight several points which are not perfectly clear in the above mentioned document. Besides, three distinct calculation methodologies are offered. These methodologies try to point out mainly two things: firstly, a variation from the document calculation methodology and, secondly, the possible effects when the IEC document methodology is not followed. For the plug-in validation the results obtained have been compared with those obtained employing the well known plug-in COQ. Results obtained show a quite good agreement between COQ results at low frequencies, while discrepancies could be up to 6% at high frequencies when filters are applied. The developed plug-in does not need installation and it is easy to work with. These two qualities make it a perfect candidate when image analysis has to be done when performing quality assurance measurements in mammography.
References
Samei E, Ikejimba LC, Harrawood BP, Rong J, Cunningham IA, Flynn MJ. Report of AAPM Task Group 162: Software for Planar Image Quality. Med Phys 2018;45(2):e32-9.
IEC, “62220-1. Medical electrical equipment - Characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices - Part 1: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency.” (Geneva, Switzerland, 2003).
EC, “62220-1-2. Medical electrical equipment - Characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices - Part 1: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency–Detectors used in mammography.” (Geneva, Switzerland, 2007).
Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 2013; 108(11):2205-40.
Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE. Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 2011;56(2):453-71.
Nicole TR, Y. Lo J, Samei E. A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography. Med Phys 2010;37(3):962-9.
Donini B, Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Bertolini M. Free software for performing physical analysis of systems for digital radiography and mammography. Med Phys 2014;41(5): 1903-10.
Ayala R, Garcia-Mollá R, Rafael L. MiQuaEla, Sofware for DQE Measuring in DIGITAL Radiography Mammography. IFMBE proceedings 2009;25(II):825-8.
Reilly A, David IT. IQ Works: An Automated Image Analysis Framework for the Objective Assessment and Optimisation of Image Quality. RSNA. 2007 November.
Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL. Hand Book of Medical Imaging, Vol 1: Physics and Psychophysics. SPIE, Washington 2000.
Buhr E, Günther-Kohfahl S, Neitzel U. Simple method for modulation transfer function determination of digital imaging detectors from edge images. Phys Med Imaging 2003;5030: 877-84.
Samei E, Flynn MJ, Reimann DA. A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. Med Phys 1998;25(1):102-13.
Hiroshi F, Du-Yih T, Itoh T, Doi K, Morishita J, Ueda K, et al. A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital radiography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1992;11(1):34-9.
Amarpreet S. Chawla, Hans Roehrig, Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, and Jiahua Fan. Determining the MTF of Medical Imaging Displays Using Edge Techniques. J Digit Imaging 2005; 18(4):296-310.
