Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 1/2013

01-02-2013 | Editorial

ACR–AAPM–SIIM Practice Guideline for Determinants of Image Quality in Digital Mammography

Authors: Kalpana M. Kanal, Elizabeth Krupinski, Eric A. Berns, William R. Geiser, Andrew Karellas, Martha B. Mainiero, Melissa C. Martin, Samir B. Patel, Daniel L. Rubin, Jon D. Shepard, Eliot L. Siegel, Judith A. Wolfman, Tariq A. Mian, Mary C. Mahoney, Margaret Wyatt

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Excerpt

These guidelines are an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate radiologic and radiation oncology care for patients. They are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care. For these reasons and those set forth below, the American College of Radiology cautions against the use of these guidelines in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question. …
Literature
1.
Avrin D, Morin R, Piraino D, et al: Storage, transmission, and retrieval of digital mammography, including recommendaitons on image compression. JACR 3:609–614, 2006PubMed
2.
Siegel E, Krupinski EA, Samei E, et al: Digital mammography image quality: image display. JACR 3:615–627, 2006PubMed
3.
Williams MB, Yaffe MJ, Maidment AD, Martin MC, Seibert JA, Pisano ED: Image quality in digital mammography: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol 3:589–608, 2006PubMedCrossRef
4.
Krupinski EA, Williams MB, Andriole K, et al: Digital radiography image quality: image processing and display. J Am Coll Radiol 4:389–400, 2007PubMedCrossRef
5.
Williams MB, Krupinski EA, Strauss KJ, et al: Digital radiography image quality: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol 4:371–388, 2007PubMedCrossRef
6.
Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals. Part 2: Ergonomic Requirements for Flat Panel Displays. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; ISO 13406–2; 2001
7.
Medical Imaging: The Assessment of Image Quality. Bethesda, Md: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; ICRU Report 54, 1996
8.
Department of Health and Human Services. FDA Mammography Quality Standards, Final Rule.: Federal Register, vol 62, No. 208; Tuesday, 28 October 1997
9.
10.
Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, et al: Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys 33:719–736, 2006PubMedCrossRef
11.
Measurements of Dimensions and Properties of Focal Spots of Diagnostic Tubes. District of Columbia, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; NEMA XR 5; 1992
12.
Samei E, Flynn MJ, Reimann DA: A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. Med Phys 25:102–113, 1998PubMedCrossRef
13.
Rezentes PS, de Almeida A, Barnes GT: Mammography grid performance. Radiology 210:227–232, 1999PubMed
14.
Wagner AJ: Contrast and grid performance in mammography. In: Barnes GT, Frey GD Eds. Screen film mammography: Imaging considerations and medical physics responsibilities. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, 1991, pp 115–134
15.
Barnes GT, Brezovich IA: The intensity of scattered radiation in mammography. Radiology 126:243–247, 1978PubMed
16.
Barnes GT, Brezovick IA: Contrast: effect of scattered radaition. In: Logan WW Ed. Breast carcinoma: the radiologists expanded role. Wiley, New York, 1977, pp 73–81
17.
18.
Nishikawa RM, Yaffe MJ: Signal-to-noise properties of mammographic film-screen systems. Med Phys 12:32–39, 1985PubMedCrossRef
19.
Swank RK: Absorption and noise in X-ray phosphors. J Appl Phys 44:4199–4203, 1973CrossRef
20.
Bunch PC, Huff KE, Van Metter R: Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a radiographic screen-film combination. J Opt Soc Am A 4:902–909, 1987PubMedCrossRef
21.
Rossmann K: Effect of quantum mottle and modulation transfer on the measurement of radiographic image quality. In: Thomas CC, Moseley RD, Rust JH, Eds. Diagnostic Radiologic Instrumentation. Springfield, MO, 1965, p 350
22.
Maidment AD, Yaffe MJ: Analysis of the spatial-frequency-dependent DQE of optically coupled digital mammography detectors. Med Phys 21:721–729, 1993CrossRef
23.
Wagner RF: Physical performance and diagnostic imaging modalities. Acad Radiol 1:69, 1999CrossRef
24.
Yaffe MJ, Nishikawa RM: X-ray imaging concepts: noise, SNR, and DQE. In: Seibert JA, Barnes GT, Gould RG Eds. Specification, acceptance testing and quality control of diagnostic X-ray imaging equipment. American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, 1994, pp 109–144
25.
Critten JP, Emde KA, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ: Digital mammography image correction and evaluation. In: Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, Eds. Digital Mammography >96: Excerpta Medica International Congress Series; 1996, pp 1119–1455
26.
Badano A, Flynn MJ, Kanicki J: High-fidelity medical imaging displays. SPIE Press, Bellingham, 2004
27.
Badano A, Flynn MJ, Martin S, Kanicki J: Angular dependence of the luminance and contrast in medical monochrome liquid crystal displays. Med Phys 30:2602–2613, 2003PubMedCrossRef
28.
Baker JA, Rosen EL, Crockett MM, Lo JY: Accuracy of segmentation of a commercial computer-aided detection system for mammography. Radiology 235:385–390, 2005PubMedCrossRef
29.
Specifications for Medical Diagnostic Imaging Test Pattern for Television Monitors and Hard-Copy Recording Cameras. New York: Society of Motion PIcture and Television Engineers, 1991
30.
Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals. Part 3: Visual Display Requirements. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; ISO 9241–3; 1992
31.
Flat Panel Display Measurements Standard. Milpitas: Video Electronics Standards Association; Version 1.0; 1998
32.
Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. Rosslyn: National Electrical Manufacturers, 2001
33.
Imaging Quality Assurance in X-Ray Diagnostics, Acceptance Testing for Image Display Devices. Munich, Germany: Deutsches Institute for Normung, 2001
34.
Quality Control Manual Template for Manufacturers of Displays and Workstations Devices Labeled for Final Interpretation in Full-Field Digital Mammography. Rosslyn: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; XR 22–2006, 2006
35.
Quality Control Manual Template for Manufacturers of Hardcopy Output Devices Labeled for Final Interpretation in Full-Field Digital Mammography. Rosslyn, Va: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; XR 23–2006, 2006
36.
Samei E, Wright SL: Viewing angle performance of medical liquid crystal displays. Med Phys 33:645–654, 2006PubMedCrossRef
37.
Gray JE, Anderson WF, Shaw CC, Shepard SJ, Zerembra LA, Lin PJ: Multiformat video and laser cameras; history, design consideration, acceptance testing, and quality control. Med Phys 20:427–438, 1993PubMedCrossRef
38.
Hendrick RE, Bassett L, Botso MA, et al: The ACR mammography quality control manual. American College of Radiology, Reston, 1999
39.
Assessment of Display Performance for Medical Imaging Systems. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; AAPM Report 003; 2005
40.
Burgess AE, Kang H: Incomplete skin representation in digital mammograms. Med Phys 31:2834–2838, 2004PubMedCrossRef
41.
Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, et al: Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology 232:762–766, 2004PubMedCrossRef
42.
Gray JE: Use of the SMPTE test pattern in picture archiving and communication systems. J Digit Imaging 5:54–58, 1992PubMedCrossRef
43.
Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, et al: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005PubMedCrossRef
44.
Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, et al: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, 2005. Task Group 18
45.
Haygood TM, Arribas E, Brennan PC, et al: Conspicuity of microcalcifications on digital screening mammograms using varying degrees of monitor zooming. Acad Radiol 16:1509–1517, 2009PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kallergi M, Heine JJ, Berman CG, Hersh MR, Romilly AP, Clark RA: Improved interpretation of digitized mammography with wavelet processing: a localization response operating characteristic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:697–703, 2004PubMed
47.
Kimme-Smith C: New digital mammography systems may require different X-ray spectra and, therefore, more general normalized glandular dose values. Radiology 213:7–10, 1999PubMed
48.
Kobayashi M: Image Optimization by Dynamic Range Control Processing. Springfield, Va: Society for Imaging Science and Technology; 47th Annual Conference, 1993
49.
Lee JS: Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by use of local statistics. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. District of Columbia, DC: IEEE, 1980:13–25
50.
Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, et al: Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20:1479–1491, 2000PubMed
51.
Flynn MJ, Badano A: Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices. J Digit Imaging 12:50–59, 1999PubMedCrossRef
52.
Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Nafziger J, Lubin J: On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions. Acad Radiol 12:957–964, 2005PubMedCrossRef
53.
Roehrig H, Krupinski EA, Furukawa T: Evaluation of a flat CRT monitor for use in radiology. J Digit Imaging 14:142–148, 2001PubMedCrossRef
54.
Badano A, Fifadara DH: Goniometric and conoscopic measurements of angular display contrast for one-, three-, five-, and nine-million-pixel medical liquid crystal displays. Med Phys 31:3452–3460, 2004PubMedCrossRef
55.
Samei E, Wright SL: Effect of viewing angle response on DICOM compliance of liquid crystal displays. Proc SPIE 5371:170–177, 2004CrossRef
56.
Freer TW, Ulissey MJ: Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781–786, 2001PubMedCrossRef
57.
Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al: Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:185–190, 2004PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zheng B, Swensson RG, Klyn AH, et al: Classification of breast abnormalities under different detection cueing environments. Proc SPIE 5372:211–217, 2004CrossRef
59.
Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Bick U, Hamm B: Reduced-dose digital mammography of skin calcifications. AJR 178:473–474, 2002PubMed
60.
Krupinski EA, Nodine CF, Kundel HL: A perceptually based method for enhancing pulmonary nodule recognition. Invest Radiol 28:289–294, 1993PubMedCrossRef
61.
Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E: Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study. Br J Radiol 76:478–482, 2003PubMedCrossRef
62.
Horii SC, Horii HN, Mun SK, Benson HR, Zeman RK: Environmental designs for reading from imaging work stations: ergonomic and architectural features. J Digit Imaging 2:156–162, 1989PubMedCrossRef
63.
Siddiqui KM, Chia S, Knight N, Siegel E: Design and ergonomic considerations for the filmless environment. J Am Coll Radiol 3:456–467, 2006PubMedCrossRef
64.
65.
Rockette HE, et al: Relationship of subjective ratings of image quality and observer performance (Proceedings Paper). In: Kundel HL Ed. Medical imaging 1997: image perception. WA SPIE Medical Imaging, Bellingham, 1997, pp 152–159CrossRef
66.
67.
68.
Brennan PC, McEntee M, Evanoff M, Phillips P, O'Connor WT, Manning DJ: Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. Am J Roentgenol 188:W177–180, 2007CrossRef
69.
Foos DH, Muka E, Slone RM, et al: JPEG 2000 compression for medical imagery. Proc SPIE 3980:85–96, 2000CrossRef
70.
Good WF, Sumkin JH, Ganott M, et al: Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol 175:1573–1576, 2000
71.
Kocsis O, Costaridou L, Varaki L, et al: Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms. Eur Radiol 13:2390–2396, 2003PubMedCrossRef
72.
Penedo M, Pearlman WA, Tahoces PG, Souto M, Vidal JJ: Region-based wavelet coding methods for digital mammography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22:1288–1296, 2003PubMedCrossRef
73.
Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Waldrop SM, D'Orsi CJ: A perceptual evaluation of JPEG 2000 image compression for digital mammography: contrast-detail characteristics. J Digit Imaging 17:64–70, 2004PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
ACR–AAPM–SIIM Practice Guideline for Determinants of Image Quality in Digital Mammography
Authors
Kalpana M. Kanal
Elizabeth Krupinski
Eric A. Berns
William R. Geiser
Andrew Karellas
Martha B. Mainiero
Melissa C. Martin
Samir B. Patel
Daniel L. Rubin
Jon D. Shepard
Eliot L. Siegel
Judith A. Wolfman
Tariq A. Mian
Mary C. Mahoney
Margaret Wyatt
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9521-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Journal of Digital Imaging 1/2013 Go to the issue

ReviewPaper

Expanding the Functionality of Speech Recognition in Radiology: Creating a Real-Time Methodology for Measurement and Analysis of Occupational Stress and Fatigue

BriefCommunication

Segmentation of the Common Carotid Artery Walls Based on a Frequency Implementation of Active Contours

ReviewPaper

Standards for Business Analytics and Departmental Workflow

ReviewPaper

Towards a More Cloud-Friendly Medical Imaging Applications Architecture: A Modest Proposal

EditorialNotes

ACR–AAPM–SIIM Technical Standard for Electronic Practice of Medical Imaging

OriginalPaper

Early Lung Cancer Detection Using the Self-Evaluation Scoring Questionnaire and Chest Digital Radiography: A 3-Year Follow-up Study in China