Journal List > J Korean Soc Radiol > v.76(3) > 1087770

TOOLS
Lee, Cha, Hong, Kim, Kim, Kim, and Kim: Comparison of Image Quality between Mammography Dedicated Monitor and UHD 4K Monitor, Using Standard Mammographic Phantom: A Preliminary Study
Computer & Others
Original Article

Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2017; 76(3): 173-178.

Published online: 28 February 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2017.76.3.173

Comparison of Image Quality between Mammography Dedicated Monitor and UHD 4K Monitor, Using Standard Mammographic Phantom: A Preliminary Study

Ji Young Lee, MD, Soon Joo Cha, MD, Sung Hwan Hong, Su Young Kim, MD, Yong Hoon Kim, MD, You Sung Kim, MD, Jeong A Kim, MD

Department of Radiology, Inje Unveristy Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Korea.

Corresponding author: Soon Joo Cha, MD. Department of Radiology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, 170 Juhwa-ro, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang 10380, Korea. Tel. 82-31-910-7394, Fax. 82-31-910-7369, chasoonj@paik.ac.kr

Received 29 November 2016       Revised 10 January 2017       Accepted 24 January 2017

Copyrights © 2017 The Korean Society of Radiology

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

Using standard mammographic phantom images, we compared the image quality obtained between a mammography dedicated 5 megapixel monitor (5M) and a UHD 4K (4K) monitor with digital imaging and communications in medicine display, to investigate the possibility of clinical application of 4K monitors.

Materials and Methods

Three different exposures (autoexposure, overexposure and underexposure) images of mammographic phantom were obtained, and six radiologists independently evaluated the images in 5M and 4K without image modulation, by scoring of fibers, groups of specks and masses within the phantom image. The mean score of each object on both monitors was independently analyzed, using t-test and interobserver reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of SPSS.

Results

The overall mean scores of fiber, group of specks, and mass in 5M were 4.25, 3.92, and 3.28 respectively, and scores obtained in 4K monitor were 3.81, 3.58, and 3.14, respectively. No statistical difference was seen in scores of fiber and mass between the two monitors at all exposure conditions, but the score of group of specks in 4K was statistically lower in the overall (p = 0.0492) and in underexposure conditions (p = 0.012). The ICC for interobserver reliability was excellent (0.874).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that since the mammographic phantom images are appropriate with no significant difference in image quality observed between the two monitors, the 4K monitor could be used for clinical studies. Since this is a small preliminary study using phantom images, the result may differ in actual mammographic images, and subsequent investigation with clinical mammographic images is required.

Keywords: Mammography, Phantoms, Imaging, Radiologists, Radiology Information Systems

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

ACR mammographic phantom image composed of fibers, groups of specks and masses. ACR = American College of Radiology

jksr-76-173-g001
Fig. 2

Bar graph comparing object scores of mammographic phantom images between 5M and 4K monitors, according to different exposure conditions. Difference of mean scores of each object between 5M and 4K monitors are not significant (p > 0.05) in auto and overexposure conditions, but the score of group of specs in underexposure condition is significantly lower in 4K than in 5M monitor (p ≤ 0.012, asterisk). Auto = autoexposure, Over = overexposure, Under = underexposure, 5M = mammography dedicated 5 megapixel monitor, 4K = UHD 4K monitor

jksr-76-173-g002
Table 1

Specification of 5M and 4K Monitors

jksr-76-173-i001
5M 4K
Technology 21.3 inch, monochrome, TFT active matrix 31 inch 17:9 wide, color, AH-IPS
Pixel pitch 0.165 × 0.165 mm 0.0567 × 0.1701 mm
Contrast ratio 800:1 1000:1 (DFC 10000000:1)
Luminance 750 cd/m2 320 cd/m2
Resolution 2560 × 2048 4096 × 2160
Grayscale display (color depth) 11.9 bit 10 bit
DICOM display Support Support

AH-IPS = AH-In-Plane Switching, DICOM =digital imaging and communications in medicine, TFT = thin film transistor, 4K = UHD 4K monitor, 5M = mammography dedicated 5 megapixel monitor

Table 2

Overall Results of Comparison of Mammographic Phantom Images between 5M and 4K Monitors

jksr-76-173-i002
Object Monitor Type N Mean ± SD Significance (p-Value)
Fiber 5M 18 4.25 ± 0.73 0.131
4K 18 3.81 ± 0.97
Specks 5M 18 3.92 ± 0.19 0.0492
4K 18 3.58 ± 0.65
Mass 5M 18 3.28 ± 1.29 0.741
4K 18 3.14 ± 1.21

N = mammographic phantom image numbers, SD = standard deviation, 5M = mammography dedicated 5 megapixel monitor, 4K = UHD 4K monitor

Table 3

Interobserver Reliability for Object Scores

jksr-76-173-i003
Observer N Mean ± SD ICC 95% CI p-Value
1 18 4.472 ± 0.5809 0.874 0.756–0.946 0.000
2 18 4.278 ± 0.4278
3 18 3.139 ± 0.8879
4 18 3.111 ± 0.8838
5 18 3.417 ± 1.0037
6 18 3.556 ± 1.0416

CI = confidence Interval, ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient, N = object's score numbers in two monitors, SD = standard deviation

References

1. Lee EH, Park B, Kim NS, Seo HJ, Ko KL, Min JW, et al. The Korean guideline for breast cancer screening. J Korean Med Assoc. 2015; 58:408–419.
2. Kanal KM, Krupinski E, Berns EA, Geiser WR, Karellas A, Mainiero MB, et al. ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging. 2013; 26:10–25.
3. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Sakai S, et al. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17:1365–1371.
4. Yamada T, Suzuki A, Uchiyama N, Ohuchi N, Takahashi S. Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18:2363–2369.
5. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Setoguchi T, Sakai S, Okafuji T, et al. Diagnostic performance in differentiation of breast lesion on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel LCD monitor, and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. Clin Imaging. 2011; 35:341–345.
6. Ong AH, Pitman AG, Tan SY, Gledhill S, Hennessy O, Lui B, et al. Comparison of 3MP medical-grade to 1MP office-grade LCD monitors in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2011; 55:153–162.
7. Geijer H, Geijer M, Forsberg L, Kheddache S, Sund P. Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology. J Digit Imaging. 2007; 20:114–121.
8. Wu J, Wu TH, Han RP, Chang SJ, Shih CT, Sun JY, et al. Comparison of the commercial color LCD and the medical monochrome LCD using randomized object test patterns. PLoS One. 2012; 7:e37769.
9. Chen Y, James JJ, Turnbull AE, Gale AG. The use of lower resolution viewing devices for mammographic interpretation: implications for education and training. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25:3003–3008.
10. Diagnostic Display Monitor Management & QC. 2008. p. 75–81.
11. Son GG, Sung DW, Jeong JH, Kang HD, Lee JR, Jung HK. A study on the usefulness of the AAPM TG18 evaluation tool for diagnostic monitor QC. J Korean Radiol Soc. 2008; 58:631–638.
12. Song SE, Seo BK, Yie A, Ku BK, Kim HY, Cho KR, et al. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom. Korean J Radiol. 2012; 13:776–783.
TOOLS
Similar articles