Challenges in Mammographic Image Quality
TOPIC:
CHALLENGES IN MAMMOGRAPHIC IMAGE QUALITY FROM CONVENTIONAL RADIOGRAPHY, MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND ULTRASOUND
A TERM PAPER
PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COURSE RAD 422
(RADIOGRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHY, OPTICS & IMAGING PROCESSES VI)
BY
OZIOKO HYACINTH CHIJIOKE
REG. NO: 2009/164100
LECTURER: DR. EZE C.U
8TH MAY 2013.
Challenges in mammographic image quality from Radiography, Ultrasound and MRI Mammographic Image quality challenges from Radiography Image clarity, or the ability of the mammogram to portray diagnostic information clearly, depends on a number of factors, which include exposure, sharpness, contrast, and noise . In the image quality category of exposure, generalized underexposure was a far more frequent deficiency than overexposure. This is of concern because lesions can be obscured in dense underexposed breast tissue, which leads to false-negative mammograms. Generalized underexposure can result from inadequate compression, technical factors, equipment malfunction, or a combination of these factors. Non-uniform exposure of the breast parenchyma with inadequate penetration of denser tissues was another commonly cited deficiency. Sharpness is the ability to define the edges of breast structures. Unsharpness, also referred to as blur, is manifested by poor delineation of the edges of linear structures, tissue margins, and microcalcifications. Common causes of blur include patient motion and poor screen-film contact. Contrast, which is the degree of variation in optical density between different areas of the film, is affected by film processing, exposure, film type, and scatter reduction (with grids, compression). Inadequate contrast was a more frequent deficiency than excessive contrast. Noise manifested as a visually striking mottle pattern, was the least common category that led to failure
CHALLENGES IN MAMMOGRAPHIC IMAGE QUALITY FROM CONVENTIONAL RADIOGRAPHY, MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND ULTRASOUND
A TERM PAPER
PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COURSE RAD 422
(RADIOGRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHY, OPTICS & IMAGING PROCESSES VI)
BY
OZIOKO HYACINTH CHIJIOKE
REG. NO: 2009/164100
LECTURER: DR. EZE C.U
8TH MAY 2013.
Challenges in mammographic image quality from Radiography, Ultrasound and MRI Mammographic Image quality challenges from Radiography Image clarity, or the ability of the mammogram to portray diagnostic information clearly, depends on a number of factors, which include exposure, sharpness, contrast, and noise . In the image quality category of exposure, generalized underexposure was a far more frequent deficiency than overexposure. This is of concern because lesions can be obscured in dense underexposed breast tissue, which leads to false-negative mammograms. Generalized underexposure can result from inadequate compression, technical factors, equipment malfunction, or a combination of these factors. Non-uniform exposure of the breast parenchyma with inadequate penetration of denser tissues was another commonly cited deficiency. Sharpness is the ability to define the edges of breast structures. Unsharpness, also referred to as blur, is manifested by poor delineation of the edges of linear structures, tissue margins, and microcalcifications. Common causes of blur include patient motion and poor screen-film contact. Contrast, which is the degree of variation in optical density between different areas of the film, is affected by film processing, exposure, film type, and scatter reduction (with grids, compression). Inadequate contrast was a more frequent deficiency than excessive contrast. Noise manifested as a visually striking mottle pattern, was the least common category that led to failure
References: 1. Public Law 102-539. The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992.1992; §354:. 2. Food and Drug Administration. Mammography facilities: requirements for accrediting bodies and quality standards and certification requirements—interim rules.Federal RegisterDecember 21, 1993; 208:55980-55981. 3. Bassett LW, Hirbawi IA, DeBruhl N, Hayes MK. Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box.Radiology1993; 188:803-806. 4. McLelland R, Hendrick RE, Zinninger MD, Wilcox PA. The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program.AJR Am J Roentgenol1991; 157:473-479. 5. Center for Devices and Radiological Health Certification/Accreditation Support System. Facility counts report, 1998 Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, 1998. 6. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BiRADS) 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998. 7. Snecdor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods 7th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1980. 8. Bassett LW/MIDDLE>, Hendrick RE/MIDDLE>, Bassford TL, et al. Quality determinants of mammography. Clinical practice guideline, no. 13. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research publication no. 95-0632 Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, October 1994.