SpringerLink
Log in

Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges

  • Physics
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews the different techniques available and competing for full-field digital mammography. The detectors are described in their principles: photostimulable storage phosphor plates inserted as a cassette in a conventional mammography unit, dedicated active matrix detectors (i.e., flat-panel, thin-film transistor-based detectors) and scanning systems, using indirect and direct X-ray conversion. The main parameters that characterize the performances of the current systems and influence the quality of digital images are briefly explained: spatial resolution, detective quantum efficiency and modulation transfer function. Overall performances are often the result of compromises in the choice of technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ (1995) Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography. Radiol Clin North Am 33:1205–1230

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ (2000) Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations. Radiol Clin North Am 38:871–898

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yaffe MJ, Rowlands JA (1997) X-ray detectors for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 42:1–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chotas HG, Dobbins JT III, Ravin CE (1999) Principles of digital radiography with large area, electronically readable detectors: a review of the basics. Radiology 210:595–599

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gould RG (1997) New detector technology. In: Frey GD, Sprawls P (eds) Proceedings of the AAPM summer school. The expanding role of medical physics in diagnostic imaging. Advanced Medical Publishing, Madison, pp 85–105. ISBN 1-888340-09-6

    Google Scholar 

  6. D’Orsi CJ (2002) Digital mammography. Curr Womens Health Rep 2:124–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Noel A, Stines J (2003) La mammographie numérique: les capteurs. J Le Sein 13:206–210

    Google Scholar 

  8. von Seggern H, Voigt T, Knupfer W, Lange G (1998) Physical model of photostimulated luminescence of X-ray irradiated BaFBr:Eu2+. J Appl Phys 64:1405–1412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yaffe MJ (2000) Digital mammography. In: Beuttel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL (eds) Handbook of medical imaging 1. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 329–372

    Google Scholar 

  10. Samei E, Seibert JA, Willis CE, Flynn MJ, Mah E, Junck KL (2001) Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems. Med Phys 28:361–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakano Y, Gido T, Honda S, Maezawa A, Wakamatsu H, Yanagita T (2002) Improved computed radiography image quality from a BaFI:Eu photostimulable phosphor plate. Med Phys 29:592–597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Arakawa S, Yasuda H, Kohda K, Suzuki T (2000) Improvement of image quality in CR mammography by detection of emission from dual sides of an imaging plate. In: Dobbins JT III, Boone JM (eds) Medical imaging 2000: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 3977. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 590–600

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cowen AR, Parkin GJ, Hawkridge P (1997) Direct digital mammography image acquisition. Eur Radiol 7:918–930

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rahn JT, Lemmi F, Lu JP, Mei P, Apte RB, Street RA, Lujan R, Weisfield RL, Heanue JA (1999) High resolution X-ray imaging using amorphous silicon flat-panel arrays. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 46:457–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Herrmann A, Bonel H, Stabler A, Kulinna C, Glaser C, Holzknecht N, Geiger B, Schatzl M, Reiser F (2002) Chest imaging with flat-panel detector at low and standard doses: comparison with storage phosphor technology in normal patients. Eur Radiol 12:385–390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kotter E, Langer M (2002) Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detectors. Eur Radiol 12:2562–2570

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Muller S (1999) Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system. Eur J Radiol 31:25–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2003) Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. Med Phys 30:334–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee DL, Cheung LK, Palecki EF, Jeromin LS (1996) A discussion on resolution and dynamic range of Se-TFT direct digital radiographic detector. In: Van Metter RL, Beutel J (eds) Medical imaging 1996: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 2708. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 511–522

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stone MF, Zhao W, Jacak BV, O’Connor P, Yu B, Rehak P (2002) The X-ray sensitivity of amorphous selenium for mammography. Med Phys 29:319–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhao W, Ji WG, Debrie A, Rowlands JA (2003) Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector. Med Phys 30:254–263

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Polischuk BT, Rougeot H, Wong K, Debrie A, Poliquin E, Hansroul M, Martin JP, Truong TT, Choquette M, Laperriere L, Shukri Z (1999) Direct conversion detector for digital mammography. In: Boone JM, Dobbins JT III (eds) Medical imaging 1999: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 3659. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 417–425

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fahrig R, Rowlands JA, Yaffe MJ (1996) X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: optimal spectra for digital mammography. Med Phys 23:557–567

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rowlands JA, Hunter DM, Araj N (1991) X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: a photoinduced discharge readout method for digital mammography. Med Phys 18:421–431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Paulus DD (1980) Xeroradiography: an in-depth review. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 12:309–384

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tesic MM, Fisher Piccaro M, Munier B (1999) Full field digital mammography scanner. Eur J Radiol 31:2–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Besson GM, Koch A, Tesic M, Sottoriva R, Prieur-Drevron P, Munier B, Calais E, De Groot P (2002) Design and evaluation of a slot-scanning full-field digital mammography system. In: Antonuk LE, Yaffe MJ (eds) Medical imaging 2002: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 4682. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 457–468

    Google Scholar 

  28. Thunberg SJ, Francke T, Egerstrom J, Eklund M, Ericsson L, Kristoffersson T, Peskov VN, Rantanen J, Sokolov S, Svedenhag P, Ullberg CK, Weber N (2002) Evaluation of a photon counting mammography system. In: Antonuk LE, Yaffe MJ (eds) Medical imaging 2002: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 4682. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 202–208

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dainty JC, Shaw R (1974) Medical imaging. Image science. Academic, London. ISBN 0-12-200850-2

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hendee WR, Ritenour ER (2002) Medical imaging physics, 4th edn. Wiley, New York. ISBN 0-471-38226-4

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lundqvist M, Danielsson M, Cederström B, Chmill V, Chuntonov A, Aslund M (2003) Measurements on a full-field digital mammography system with a photon counting crystalline silicone detector. In: Yaffe MJ, Antonuk LE (eds) Medical imaging 2003: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 5030. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 547–552

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lundqvist M (2003) Silicon strip detectors for scanned multi-slit X-ray imaging. PhD Thesis, Kungl Tekniska Högskolan, Fysiska Institutionen, Stockholm. ISBN 91-7283-512-5, ISSN 0280-316X

  33. Mikulec B (2000) Single photon detection with semiconductor pixel arrays for medical imaging applications. PhD Thesis, University of Vienna, Austria. CERN-THESIS 2000-021

  34. Danielsson M, Bornefalk H, Cederström B, Chmill V, Hasewaga B, Lundqvist M, Nygren D (2000) Dose efficient system for digital mammography. In: Dobbins JT III, Boone JM (eds) Medical Imaging 2000: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 3977. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 239–249

    Google Scholar 

  35. Francke T, Eklund M, Ericsson L, Kristoffersson T, Peskov VN, Rantanen J, Sokolov S, Soderman JE, Ullberg CK, Weber N (2001) Dose reduction using photon counting X-ray imaging. In: Antonuk LE, Yaffe MJ (eds) Medical imaging 2001: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 4320. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 127–132

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dobbins JT III (1999) Determination of MTF, NPS and DQE in practice. In: Mansson LG (ed) Lectures notes: physics of medical X-ray imaging, European Commission, ERPET Course, Malmö, 8–12 June, pp F1–F8

  37. Dobbins JT III (1995) Effect of undersampling on the proper interpretation of modulation transfer function, noise power spectra and noise equivalent quanta of digital imaging systems. Med Phys 22:171–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Moy JP (2000) Signal-to-noise ratio and spatial resolution in X-ray electronic imagers: is the MTF a relevant parameter? Med Phys 27:86–93

    Google Scholar 

  39. Albert M, Beideck DJ, Bakic PR, Maidment AD (2002) Aliasing effects in digital images of line-pair phantoms. Med Phys 29:1716–1718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Cardenosa G, Powell KA (2000) Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. Am J Roentgenol 175:45–51

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, Johnston RE, Kuzmiak CM, Braeuning MP, Freimanis RI, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mainprize JG, Ford NL, Yin S, Gordon EE, Hamilton WJ, Tumer TO, Yaffe MJ (2002) A CdZnTe slot-scanned detector for digital mammography. Med Phys 29:2767–2781

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Street RA, Mulato M, Schieber MM, Hermon H, Shah KS, Bennett PR, Dmitryev Y, Ho J, Lau R, Meerson E, Ready SE, Reisman B, Sado Y, Van Schuylenbergh K, Vilensky AI, Zuck A (2001) Comparative study of PbI2 and HgI2 as direct detector for high-resolution X-ray image sensors. In: Antonuk LE, Yaffe MJ (eds) Medical imaging 2001: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 4320. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  44. Amendolia SR, Bisogni MG, Bottigli U, Ciocci MA, Delogu P, Dipasquale G, Fantacci ME, Giannelli M, Maestro P, Marzulli VM, Pernigotti E, Rosso V, Stefanini A, Stumbo S (2000) Low contrasting imaging with a aGaAs pixel digital detector. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 47:1478–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Samei E, Flynn MJ (2003) An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect radiography systems. Med Phys 30:608–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. van Engen R, Young K, Bosmans H, Thijssen M (2003) Addendum on digital mammography to the European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. Version 1, European Commission, November, EUREF office, Nijmegen

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre Alexis Vautrin, Unité de Radiophysique Médicale, Paris, France

    A. Noel

  2. Service de Radiologie, Institut Curie, 26 rue d’Ulm, 75248, Paris Cedex 05, France

    F. Thibault

Authors
  1. A. Noel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Thibault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Thibault.

Glossary

Photodiode (or light-sensitive diode)

Semi-conductor element converting light energy into electrical current. The intensity of the current generated, and therefore the quantity of electricity produced, are proportional to the light intensity (itself proportional to the incident irradiation). In the case of indirect conversion detectors, the electronic charges produced are stored in a condenser. Detectors contain one photodiode per pixel.

Thin-film transistor (TFT)

Electronic component of an active matrix in which each element (one element per pixel) acts like a switch integrated in the reading circuit to determine the quantity of electronic charges produced by the photodiode and stored in the condenser.

Charge coupled device (CCD)

Electronic component converting light energy into electrical current. The quantity of electricity produced, proportional to the light intensity, is stored directly in the device. CCDs are used in indirect conversion detectors.

Structured scintillator

Scintillator whose crystalline structure is composed of needle-like elements that channel light down the length of the crystal and minimize lateral spread.

Spatial resolution

Spatial resolution is expressed in cycles per mm or, more commonly, in line-pairs per millimeter (lp/mm) and indicates the size of the smallest structure detectable on a test object measured under laboratory conditions, which increase contrast while reducing noise. It is measured by X-raying a phantom composed of periodic elements (alternating bars and spaces) of increasing frequency (bars of decreasing thickness).

Nyquist (or cut-off) frequency

Corresponds to a particular value of spatial resolution defined by the pixel size of the digital detector. According to the sampling theorem, the Nyquist frequency is equal to 1/[2 × pixel size (mm)]. It is expressed in lp/mm. Objects with a spatial frequency higher than the Nyquist frequency will either not be visualized or will be visualized incorrectly (aliasing).

Modulation transfer function (MTF)

Describe the ability of an imaging system to transfer the contrast of a structure to the final recorded image. In practice, this reflects the loss of contrast induced by the imaging system as a function of spatial resolution, i.e., spatial frequency expressed in line-pairs per millimeter. By definition, the MTF is equal to 1 for a spatial frequency of zero and decreases as far as 0 with increasing spatial frequency.

Spatial frequency

The frequency spectrum of an image can be obtained by its Fourier transform. More simply, by analogy with a periodic vibratory phenomenon specified by its frequency (number of cycles per unit of time, usually expressed in hertz, Hz), a pattern in the image is characterized by its repetition in space expressed in cycles or line-pairs per unit of length. An object with dimension d (for example, d=0.08 mm) contained in the image would be associated with a spatial frequency of 1/2d (1/2×0.08=6.25 lp/mm).

Aliasing

Phenomenon resulting from signal undersampling by a digital imaging system, either the detector or reading system (PSP laser beam). Objects with a spatial frequency higher than the Nyquist frequency of the imaging system are replicated as artifacts around the Nyquist frequency that superimpose on objects with lower frequencies. The low frequency noise level is therefore increased, which degrades low contrast object detection.

Detective quantum efficiency (DQE)

DQE characterizes the ability of a detector to use the transmitted photons (through the breast, bucky and grid) at the detector input. It is expressed as the ratio of the squares of the signal-to-noise ratio at the detector input and detector output. An ideal system, which would not add any noise, i.e., which would use all photons reaching the detector, would have a DQE equal to 1. A real detector is increasingly “better” as its DQE approaches 1. The DQE of a system is maximal for zero spatial frequency and decreases with increasing spatial frequency.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Noel, A., Thibault, F. Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14, 1990–1998 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2446-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2446-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation