Performance of advanced a-Si/CsI-based flat-panel x-ray detectors for mammography

Albagli, Douglas; Hudspeth, H.; Possin, G. E.; Lee, Ji Ung; Granfors, Paul R.; Giambattista, Brian W.

doi:10.1117/12.480010

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reduction in detector element size in phosphor flatpanel systems is difficult. On the other hand, it has been indicated that through engineering it is possible to make further reductions in intrinsic detector noise, thereby improving the DQE [17]. An advantage of phosphor flatpanel systems is that images can be obtained in relatively short sequence imaging.…”

Section: Flat-panel Systemsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Current state of digital mammography

Shiraishi

2008

Breast Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital imaging is rapidly becoming modern radiology practice, resulting in the gradual replacement of conventional radiographs. At present high-quality digital mammography has been available for several years and is increasingly used for diagnostic and screening mammography. Some different digital mammography systems exist, which all have their advantages and disadvantages. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography has been shown to be at least equivalent to screen-film mammography (SFM). Digital mammography offers some potential advantages over SFM. This article describes the current state of digital mammography and presents data from clinical trials that support the use of digital mammography technology.

show abstract

Section: Flat-panel Systemsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Current state of digital mammography

Shiraishi

2008

Breast Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We shall draw comparisons between the potential imaging performance of IA based systems, exemplified by the Senographe 2000D, and the a-Se based system described by Yorker et al 2 The methodology used to experimentally measure the MTF(f), the noise power spectrum, NPS(f), and the detective quantum efficiency, DQE(f), have been reported previously. 6 In order to facilitate comparisons with the DQE results reported by Yorker et al, a small scaling factor of less than five percent was applied to convert our data, taken with a rhodium spectrum at 30 kVp with a Rh filter and 2.1cm of additional Lucite, to the Mo28 spectrum used by Yorker et al This scaling factor accounts for the difference in the fractional x-ray absorption between the two spectra. Our data were acquired at a high exposure.…”

Section: Image Quality Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced a-Si/CsI-based flat-panel x-ray detector for mammography

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The GE Senographe 2000D, the first full field digital mammography system based on amorphous silicon (a-Si) flat panel arrays and a cesium iodide (CsI) scintillator, has been in clinical use for over five years. One of the major advantages of this technology platform over competing platforms is the inherent flexibility of the design. Specifically, it is possible to optimize the x-ray conversion layer (scintillator) independently of the light conversion layer (panel) and vice versa. This is illustrated by a new detector utilizing the same amorphous silicon (a-Si) flat panel design, but an optimized scintillator layer, which provides up to 15% higher DQE than the existing detector. By utilizing the existing flat panel with an optimized scintillator layer, it is possible to significantly boost performance without changes to the panel design. Future enhancements to both the panel and scintillator will raise the DQE at zero frequency to more than 80%. The a-Si/CsI platform is especially well suited to advanced applications utilizing very low doses.

show abstract

“…These systems use a-Si:CsI flat panel arrays [10][11][12]. The DQE ranges from 35-45% and measured at 18% DQE for (5 mm -1 ) [9,10,[16][17][18]. Both the GE Senographe Essential and Senographe DS have the same detector element size (100 μm) but different detector size: Senographe Essential, 24 × 30.7 cm 2 and Senographe DS, (23 × 19.2 cm 2 ) [10,11,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of mammographic imaging systems on density measurement

Damases

Brennan

McEntee

2015

Medical Imaging 2015: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether having a mammogram on differing manufacturer equipment will affect a woman's breast density (BD) measurement. The data set comprised of 40 cases, each containing a combined image of the left craniocaudal (LCC) and left mediolateral oblique (LMLO). These images were obtained from 20 women age between 42-89 years. The images were acquired on two imaging systems (GE and Hologic) one year apart. Volumetric BD was assessed by using Volpara Density Grade (VDG) and average BD% (AvBD%). Twenty American Board of Radiology (ABR) examiners assessed the same images using the BIRADS BD scale 1-4. Statistical comparisons were performed on the means using Mann-Whitney, on correlation using Spearman's rank coefficient of correlation and agreement using Cohen's Kappa. The absolute median BIRADS difference between GE and Hologic was 0.225 (2.00 versus 2.00; p<0.043). The VDG measures for GE was not statistically different to Hologic (2.00 versus 2.00; p<0.877), likewise the median AvBD% for the GE and Hologic systems showed no difference (6.51 versus 6.79; p<0.935). BIRADS for GE and Hologic systems showed strong positive correlation (ρ=0.904; p<0.001), while the VDG (ρ=0.978; p<0.001) and AvBD% (ρ=0.973; p<0.001) showed very strong positive correlations. There was a substantial agreement between GE and Hologic systems for BIRADS density shown with Cohen's Kappa (κ=0.692; p<0.001), however the systems demonstrated an almost perfect agreement for VDG (κ=0.933; p<0.001).

show abstract

Performance of advanced a-Si/CsI-based flat-panel x-ray detectors for mammography

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Current state of digital mammography

Current state of digital mammography

Enhanced a-Si/CsI-based flat-panel x-ray detector for mammography

The impact of mammographic imaging systems on density measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About