Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography.

BACKGROUND: Magnification mammography is performed to enhance the visibility of small structures at the expense of relatively high radiation dose as a complementary examination to standard mammography. The introduction of post-processing capabilities and the widespread use of digital mammography has promoted some controversy in the last decade on whether similar visibility can be achieved using electronic zoom. The aim of this study is to compare the visibility of small structures in images obtained by the two techniques stated above for different exposure conditions. METHODS: Images of a Fluke Biomedical Model 18-220 Mammography Accreditation Phantom were obtained using standard techniques and geometric magnification, using a digital mammography unit, with different exposure factors. Three different target/filter combinations (Mo/Mo,Mo/Rh,Rh/Rh), variable kVp (26-32), and automatic exposure control were used. Images obtained using standard technique were electronically zoomed and compared to the corresponding magnification mammograms. Comparisons were based on the visibility of structures evaluated by five senior technologist with extensive experience in mammography. Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Visibility of structures was not affected by the kV used for a given target/filter combination for both techniques (p > 0.065). Target/filter combination of Mo/Mo provided better visibility of micro-calcification and fibers (p < 0.026) in geometric magnification technique and Mo/Rh in the digital zoom technique. No significant differences were observed in the visibility of simulated breast masses. The overall image score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for geometric magnification over the digital zoom for Mo/Mo & Rh/Rh combinations. CONCLUSION: Although sufficient image quality was maintained in electronically zoomed images, geometric magnification provided better overall visualization of structures in the phantom.

Technical Note: Model-based magnification/minification correction of patient size surrogates extracted from CT localizers.

PURPOSE: Patient size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) calculations require knowledge of a patient's size. Errors in patient size propagate through SSDE calculations. AAPM Reports 204 and 220 recommend that a magnification correction be applied to patient size surrogates extracted from CT localizer radiographs. This technical note presents a novel approach for such a magnification correction. METHODS: In our model-based magnification correction, we assume that the patient's cross sections are elliptical with minor and major axes defined using the anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) patient dimensions. We parameterize the problem by modeling a line emanating from the source, grazing the patient (i.e., the ellipse), and then terminating onto the detector plane. We model tangent lines on each side of the ellipse on both the LAT and AP CT localizer radiographs. We also account for vertical mispositioning with table offset. We compared our correction model to the actual AP and LAT dimensions to the vendor-supplied CT localizer images that only received a geometric magnification correction, and to other methods described in the literature. We compare our model to the others using direct size to size comparisons as well as SSDE conversion factor. RESULTS: Our model-based method provides consistent accurate results (less than 1.8% error for absolute size and 1.2% error for SSDE for all measurement conditions) for all positions and patient sizes. Existing literature-based methods had maximum errors for absolute size and SSDE of 7.5% and 5.2%, and for the vendor, they were 30.9% and 17.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We presented a new model-based geometric size correction method that outperforms a simple geometric correction as well as other methods presented in the literature. By modeling the patient cross section and beam geometry using information all derived from the DICOM header and CT localizer views, we demonstrated SSDE correction factor improvements from 17.0% (vendor correction) to 1.2% (model base). These changes correspond directly into changes in SSDE itself and also represent clinically realistic patient sizes and mispositioning amounts.

Investigation of spatial resolution characteristics of an in vivo micro computed tomography system.

The spatial resolution characteristics of an in vivo micro computed tomography (CT) system was investigated in the in-plane (x-y), cross plane (z) and projection imaging modes. The micro CT system utilized in this study employs a flat panel detector with a 127 µm pixel pitch, a micro focus x-ray tube with a focal spot size ranging from 5-30 µm, and accommodates three geometric magnifications (M) of 1.72, 2.54 and 5.10. The in-plane modulation transfer function (MTF) curves were measured as a function of the number of projections, geometric magnification (M), detector binning and reconstruction magnification (MRecon). The in plane cutoff frequency (10% MTF) ranged from 2.31 lp/mm (M=1.72, 2×2 binning) to 12.56 lp/mm (M=5.10, 1×1 binning) and a bar pattern phantom validated those measurements. A slight degradation in the spatial resolution was observed when comparing the image reconstruction with 511 and 918 projections, whose effect was visible at the lower frequencies. Small value of MRecon has little or no impact on the in-plane spatial resolution owning to a stable system. Large value of MRecon has implications on the spatial resolution and it was evident when comparing the bar pattern images reconstructed with MRecon=1.25 and 2.5. The cross plane MTF curves showed that the spatial resolution increased as the slice thickness decreased. The cutoff frequencies in the projection imaging mode yielded slightly higher values as compared to the in-plane and cross plane modes at all the geometric magnifications (M). At M=5.10, the cutoff resolution of the projection and cross plane on an ultra-high contrast resolution bar chip phantom were 14.9 lp/mm and 13-13.5 lp/mm. Due to the finite focal spot size of the x-ray tube, the detector blur and the reconstruction kernel functions, the system's spatial resolution does not reach the limiting spatial resolution as defined by the Nyquist's detector criteria with an ideal point source. The geometric magnification employed in the micro CTs provide a tradeoff between field of view and spatial resolution for a wide range of applications.