Dry versus conventional laser imagers: film properties and image quality

Hardcopy quality parameters to ensure structures detection at digital mammography

Objective To develop procedures to ensure consistency of printing quality of digital images, by means of hardcopy quantitative analysis based on a standard image. Materials and Methods Characteristics of mammography DI-ML and general purpose DI-HL films were studied through the QC-Test utilizing different processing techniques in a FujiFilm®-DryPix4000 printer. A software was developed for sensitometric evaluation, generating a digital image including a gray scale and a bar pattern to evaluate contrast and spatial resolution. Results Mammography films showed maximum optical density of 4.11 and general purpose films, 3.22. The digital image was developed with a 33-step wedge scale and a high-contrast bar pattern (1 to 30 lp/cm) for spatial resolution evaluation. Conclusion Mammographic films presented higher values for maximum optical density and contrast resolution as compared with general purpose films. The utilized digital processing technique could only change the image pixels matrix values and did not affect the printing standard. The proposed digital image standard allows greater control of the relationship between pixels values and optical density obtained in the analysis of films quality and printing systems.

Dry imaging cameras

Dry imaging cameras are important hard copy devices in radiology. Using dry imaging camera, multiformat images of digital modalities in radiology are created from a sealed unit of unexposed films. The functioning of a modern dry camera, involves a blend of concurrent processes, in areas of diverse sciences like computers, mechanics, thermal, optics, electricity and radiography. Broadly, hard copy devices are classified as laser and non laser based technology. When compared with the working knowledge and technical awareness of different modalities in radiology, the understanding of a dry imaging camera is often superficial and neglected. To fill this void, this article outlines the key features of a modern dry camera and its important issues that impact radiology workflow.

Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: Is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?

OBJECTIVE

Dry laser printers have replaced wet laser printers to produce hard copies of high-resolution digital images, primarily because of environmental concerns. However, no scientific research data have been published that compare the image quality of dry and wet laser printers in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). This study questions the image quality of these printers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Objective image quality parameters of both printers were evaluated using a standardized printer test image, i.e., optical density and detectability of specific image elements (lines, curves, and shapes). Furthermore, mammograms of 129 patients with different breast tissue composition patterns were imaged with both printers. A total of 1806 subjective image quality parameters (brightness, contrast, and detail detection of anatomic structures), the detectability of breast lesions, as well as diagnostic performance according to the BI-RADS classification were evaluated. In addition, the presence of film artifacts was investigated.

RESULTS

Optical density values were equal for the dry and the wet laser printer. Detection of specific image elements on the printer test image was not different. Ratings of subjective image quality parameters were equal, as were the detectability of breast lesions and the diagnostic performance. Dry laser printer images showed more artifacts (164 versus 27). However, these artifacts did not influence image quality.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence of objective and subjective parameters, a dry laser printer equals the image quality of a wet laser printer in FFDM. Therefore, not only for reasons of environmental preference, the replacement of wet laser printers by dry laser printers in FFDM is justified.

Image Quality of a Wet Laser Printer Versus a Paper Printer for Full-Field Digital Mammograms

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the image quality of a wet laser printer with that of a paper printer for full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For both a wet laser printer and a paper printer connected to an FFDM system, image quality parameters were evaluated using a standardized printer test image (luminance density, dynamic range). The detectability of standardized objects on a phantom was also evaluated. Furthermore, 640 mammograms of 80 patients with different breast tissue composition patterns were imaged with both printers. Subjective image quality parameters (brightness, contrast, and detection of details of anatomic structures-that is, skin, subcutis, musculature, glandular tissue, and fat), the detectability of breast lesions (mass, calcifications), and the diagnostic performance according to the BI-RADS classification were evaluated.

RESULTS

Both the luminance density and the dynamic range were superior for the wet laser printer. More standardized objects were visible on the phantom imaged with the wet laser printer than with the paper printer (13/16 vs 11/16). Each subjective image quality parameter of the mammograms from the wet laser printer was rated superior to those of the paper printer. Significantly more breast lesions were detected on the wet laser printer images than on the paper printer images (masses, 13 vs 10; calcifications, 65 vs 48; p < 0.05). With the paper printer images, BI-RADS 4 and 5 categories were underestimated for 10 (43.5%) of 23 patients.

CONCLUSION

For FFDM, images obtained from a wet laser printer show superior objective and subjective image quality compared with a paper printer. As a consequence, the paper printer should not be used for FFDM.