Technical Reports from Quality Assurance
- Breast screening: IMS Giotto Class evaluation
- NHS Breast Screening Programme
- PHE publications gateway number --
- August 2020
- Technical evaluation of the IMS Giotto Class digital mammography system in 2D mode
- NHS Breast Screening Programme
- PHE publications gateway number GW-524
- July 2019
- Technical evaluation of IMS Giotto Class digital breast tomosynthesis system
- NHS Breast Screening Programme
- PHE publications gateway number 2018566
- October 2018
- Technical evaluation of the IMS Giotto 3DL Digital Breast Imaging System
- NHS Breast Screening Programme
- NHSBSP Equipment Report 1301
- March 2013
Physics characterizations including IMS Giotto devices from peer reviewed papers
- A comparative study of physical image quality in digital and synthetic mammography from commercially available mammography systems.
- Baldelli P, Bertolini M, Contillo A, et al
- Phys Med Biol. 2018; 63(16):165020
- A quantitative metrology for performance characterization of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on an anthropomorphic phantom.
- Ikejimba L, Lo JY, Chen Y, Oberhofer N, Kiarashi N, Samei E.
- Med Phys. 2016; 43(4):162
- Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data.
- Bouwman RW, van Engen RE, Young KC, et al
- Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(20):7893–7907
- Synchrotron based planar imaging and digital tomosynthesis of breast and biopsy phantoms using a CMOS active pixel sensor.
- Szafraniec MB, Konstantinidis AC, Tromba G, et al
- Physica Medica 2015; 31(2):192–198
- Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography
- Hilde Bosmans, An De Hauwere, Kim Lemmens, Federica Zanca, Hubert Thierens, Chantal Van Ongeval, Koen Van Herck, Andre Van Steen, Patrick Martens, Luc Bleyen, Gretel Vande Putte, Eliane Kellen, Griet Mortier, Erik Van Limbergen
- European Radiology 23(10):2891:2898
- 2013
- Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.
- Zanca F, Van Ongeval C, Claus F, Jacobs J, Oyen R, Bosmans H.
- Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1020):e1233-41
- Constancy Checking of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Systems.
- Jacobs J, Marshall NW, Cockmartin L, et al
- Proceedings of IWDM 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6136: 518–525
- Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
- Zanca F, Jacobs J, Van Ongeval C, Claus F, Celis V, Geniets C, Provost V, Pauwels H, Marchal G, Bosmans H.
- Med Phys. 2009; 36(3):765-75
- Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
- Muhogora WE, Devetti A, Padovani R, Msaki P, Bonutti F.
- Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008; 129(1-3):231-6
- Automatic Exposure Control in Digital Mammography: Contrast-to-Noise Ratio Versus Average Glandular Dose.
- Gennaro G, Golinelli P, Bellan E, et al
- Proceedings of IWDM 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5116: 711–715
- Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
- Lazzari B, Belli G, Gori C, Rosselli Del Turco M.
- Med Phys. 2007; 34(7):2730-43.
- La mammographie numérique: paramètres utiles à l'évaluation des systèmes et offre industrielle en France.
- Stines J, Noel A, Heid P.
- J Radiol. 2007; 88(7-8 Pt 1):933-42.
- Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
- Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Campanini R, Bertolini M, Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Danielli C, Angelini L, Maggi S.
- Med Phys. 2006; 33(11):4198-209
Documents mentioning IMS Giotto devices
- Normalized glandular dose coefficients for digital breast tomosynthesis systems with a homogeneous breast model.
- Antonio Sarno, Raffaele Maria Tucciariello3, Giovanni Mettivier, Damiano Del Sarto, Maria Evelina Fantacci, Paolo Russo
- Phys Med Biol. 2021; 66(6):065024
- Design and development of a phantom for tomosynthesis with potential for automated analysis via the cloud.
- David Goodenough, Josh Levy, Hildur Olafsdottir, Ingvi Olafsson
- Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2018; 19(3):291-300
- A novel approach to background subtraction in contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography with commercially available mammography devices: Noise minimization.
- Contillo A, Di Domenico G, Cardarelli P, et al
- Med Phys. 2016; 43(6):3080
- A novel approach to background subtraction in contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography with commercially available mammography devices: Polychromaticity correction.
- Contillo A, Di Domenico G, Cardarelli P, et al
- Med Phys. 2015; 42(11):6641
- Digital Mammography Screening with Photon-counting Technique: Can a High Diagnostic Performance Be Realized at Low Mean Glandular Dose?
- Weigel S, Berkemeyer S, Girnus R, et al
- Radiology 2014; 271(2):345–55
- Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems.
- Monnin P, Bosmans H, Verdun FR, Marshall NW
- Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59(19):5741–61
- 2.05 - Breast Imaging.
- Taibi A, Vecchio S
- In COMPREHENSIVE BIOMEDICAL PHYSICS. 2014. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, vol 2, pp 121–154
- A Review of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
- Reiser IS, Sechopoulos I
- Med Phys Int J. 2014; 2(1):57–66
- Digital breast tomosynthesis: Studies of the effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images.
- Goodsitt MM, Chan H-P, Schmitz A, et al
- Phys Med Biol 2014; 59(19):5883–5902
- A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process.
- Sechopoulos I
- Med Phys. 2013; 40(1):014301
Interesting external links
