Implementation of a quality control protocol in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). (September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stancampiano, C.; Boschiroli, L.; Campoleoni, M.; Vismara, L.O.
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 32(2016)Supplement 3
• Page Start: 326
• Publication Date: 2016-09
• Subjects: Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.07.223
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: DBT is a new image system that needs to be evaluated in terms of image quality and performance. Purpose: The aim of this work is the implementation of a quality control protocol in digital breast tomosynthesis with the aid of different phantoms and the comparison of results obtained on two Hologic Selenia Dimensions mammography systems. Materials and methods: We analyzed several aspects of DBT systems such as X-ray generation, image receptor, image quality of the reconstructed images and dosimetry. We evaluated focal spot motion measuring projection, the exposure time and the time for a complete scan. We verified the stability of the exposure distribution over the projections. We also measured image receptor response, uncorrected defective detector elements and detector homogeneity on reconstructed images. We assessed in-plane projection and system MTF at different positions above the bucky with edge phantoms made of different materials and thicknesses. We also measured in-plane projection MTF using a tungsten wire. We evaluated Z-resolution with different diameter aluminum spheres and a tungsten wire. We made an artifact analysis with different phantoms and we assessed NNPS for the standard breast thickness at clinically selected parameters and with different doses. We investigated in-plane image quality in different noise conditions with CDMAM phantom. Finally, we assessed AGD for different breast thicknesses to be compared with AGD in FFDM for the same thicknesses and with AGD displayed by the system. Results and conclusion: The performance of the two different equipment tested were comparable and close to the values found in literature.