Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.
Digital breast tomosynthesis
Image quality
Mammography
S-view
Synthetic mammogram
Wide angle DBT
Journal
Physical and engineering sciences in medicine
ISSN: 2662-4737
Titre abrégé: Phys Eng Sci Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101760671
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
12
06
2020
accepted:
15
11
2020
pubmed:
24
11
2020
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
23
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has recently gained interest both for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Its employment has increased also in conjunction with digital mammography (DM), to improve cancer detection and reduce false positive recall rate. Synthetic mammograms (SMs) reconstructed from DBT data have been introduced to replace DM in the DBT + DM approach, for preserving the benefits of the dual-acquisition modality whilst reducing radiation dose and compression time. Therefore, different DBT models have been commercialized and the effective potential of each system has been investigated. In particular, wide-angle DBT was shown to provide better depth resolution than narrow-angle DBT, while narrow-angle DBT allows better identification of microcalcifications compared to wide-angle DBT. Given the increasing employment of SMs as supplement to DBT, a comparison of image quality between SMs obtained in narrow-angle and wide-angle DBT is of practical interest. Therefore, the aim of this phantom study was to evaluate and compare the image quality of SMs reconstructed from 15° (SM
Identifiants
pubmed: 33226534
doi: 10.1007/s13246-020-00948-2
pii: 10.1007/s13246-020-00948-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23-35Références
Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening: viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372(24):2353–2358
pubmed: 26039523
Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE (2017) Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(2):256–266
pubmed: 27786548
Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2018) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia tomosynthesis randomized trial. Radiology 288(2):375–385
pubmed: 29869961
European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2018) Protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of digital breast tomosynthesis systems. (EUREF)
Badano A, Graff CG, Badal A et al (2018) Evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis as replacement of full-field digital mammography using an in silico imaging trial. JAMA Netw Open 1(7):e185474
pubmed: 30646401
pmcid: 6324392
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT et al (2019) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Oslo tomosynthesis screening trial. Radiology 291(1):23–30
pubmed: 30777808
Ab Mumin N, Rahmat K, Fadzli F et al (2019) Diagnostic efficacy of synthesized 2D digital breast tomosynthesis in multi-ethnic Malaysian population. Sci Rep 9:1459
pubmed: 30728394
Cavicchioli R, Cheng HuJ, LoliPiccolomini E, Morotti E, Zanni L (2020) GPU acceleration of a model-based iterative method for digital breast tomosynthesis. Sci Rep 10:43
pubmed: 31913333
pmcid: 6949234
Sechopoulos I (2013a) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I: The image acquisition process. Med Phys 40(1):014301
pubmed: 23298126
pmcid: 3548887
Sechopoulos I (2013b) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II: Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys 40(1):014302
pubmed: 23298127
pmcid: 3548896
Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277(3):663–684
pubmed: 26599926
pmcid: 4666121
Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. RadiatProtDosim 139(1–3):113–117
Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408
pubmed: 23701081
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013a) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. EurRadiol 23:2061–2071
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013b) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56
pubmed: 23297332
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507
pubmed: 25058084
Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693
pubmed: 24918774
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663
pubmed: 24484063
Shin SU, Chang JM, Bae MS et al (2014) Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density. EurRadiol 25(1):1–8
Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92
pubmed: 25188431
Houssami N (2018) Evidence on synthesized two-dimensional mammography versus digital mammography when using tomosynthesis (three-dimensional mammography) for population breast cancer screening. Clin Breast Cancer 18(4):255-260.e1
pubmed: 29066138
Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY, Ko ES, Hahn SY, Shin JH, Kim MJ (2016) Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. EurRadiol 26(8):2538–2546
Zuckerman SP, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF (2017) Imaging with synthesized 2D mammography differences, advantages, and pitfalls compared with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209(1):222–229
pubmed: 28463546
Alshafeiy TI, Wadih A, Nicholson BT, Rochman CM, Peppard HR, Patrie JT, Harvey JA (2017) Comparison between digital and synthetic 2D mammograms in breast density interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209(1):W36–W41
pubmed: 28504593
Ratanaprasatporn L, Chikarmane SA, Giess CS (2017) Strengths and weaknesses of synthetic mammography in screening. RadioGraphics 37(7):1913–1927
pubmed: 29131762
Durand MA (2018) Synthesized mammography: clinical evidence, appearance, and implementation. Diagnostics 8(2):E22
pubmed: 29617294
Smith AH (2020) Synthesized 2D mammographic imaging theory and clinical performance. C-view white paper. http://www.lowdose3d.com . Accessed 7 Apr 2020
van Schie G, Mann R, Imhof-Tas M, Karssemeijer N (2013) Generating synthetic mammograms from reconstructed tomosynthesis volumes. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32(12):2322–2331
pubmed: 24058019
Wei J, Chan HP, Helvie MA et al (2019) Synthesizing mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol 64(4):045011
pubmed: 30625429
pmcid: 6438841
Nelson JS, Wells JR, Baker JA, Samei E (2016) How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? Med Phys 43(5):2538
pubmed: 27147364
Ikejimba LC, Glick SJ, Samei E, Lo JY (2016) Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms. Med Phys 43(10):5593
pubmed: 27782687
Barca P, Lamastra R, Aringhieri G, Tucciariello RM, Traino A, Fantacci ME (2019) Comprehensive assessment of image quality in synthetic and digital mammography: a quantitative comparison. AustralasPhysEngSci Med 42(4):1141–1152
Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271(3):664–671
pubmed: 24475859
pmcid: 4263638
Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM et al (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281(3):730–736
pubmed: 27467468
pmcid: 5131829
Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1105–1113
pubmed: 27345635
Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N (2017) Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories. Breast Cancer Res Treatm 166(3):765–773
Wahab RA, Lee SJ, Zhang B, Sobel L, Mahoney MC (2018) A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening. Eur J Radiol 107:14–19
pubmed: 30292258
Murphy MC, Coffey L, O’Neill AC, Quinn C, Prichard R, McNally S (2018) Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set? Ir J Med Sci 187(4):1077–1081
pubmed: 29427198
Hadjipanteli A, Elangovan P, Mackenzie A, Wells K, Dance DR, Young KC (2019) The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med 57:25–32
pubmed: 30738528
Murakami R, Uchiyama N, Tani H, Yoshida T, Kumita S (2020) Comparative analysis between synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for breast cancer detection and visibility. Eur J of Radiol Open 7:100207
Orsi MA, Cellina M, Rosti C, Gibelli D, Belloni E, Oliva G (2018) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a state-of-the-art review. Nucl Med Biomed Imaging 3(4):1–9
Ortenzia O, Rossi R, Bertolini M, Nitrosi A, Ghetti C (2018) Physical characterisation of four different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems. RadiatProtDosimetry 181(3):277–289
Sundell VM, Jousi M, Hukkinen K, Blanco R, Mäkelä T, Kaasalainen T (2019) A phantom study comparing technical image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems. Phys Med 63:122–130
pubmed: 31221403
Marshall NW, Bosmans H (2012) Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems. Phys Med Biol 57:7629–7650
pubmed: 23123601
Yoshinari ODA, Takaaki ITO, Keiichiro SATO, Morita J (2014) Development of digital mammography system “AMULET Innovality” for examining breast cancer. Fujifilm research & development (No. 59)
Chan HP, Helvie MA, Hadjiisky L, Jeffries DO et al (2017) Characterization of breast masses in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammograms: an observer performance study. AcadRadiol 24(11):1372–1379
Calliste J, Wu G, Laganis PE (2017) Second generation stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system with faster scan time and wider angular span. Med Phys 44:4482–4495
pubmed: 28569999
Chan HP, Goodsitt M, Helvie MA, Zelakiewicz S et al (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments and number of projection views. Radiology 273:3
Hadjipanteli A, Elangovan P, Looney P, Mackenzie A, Wells K, Dance DR, Young KC (2016) Detection of microcalcification clusters in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis and the relation to the standard method of measuring image quality. In: XIV Mediterranean conference on medical and biological engineering and computing 2016, IFMBE proceedings 57, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32703-7_44
Lamastra R, Barca P, Bisogni MG et al (2020) Image quality comparison between synthetic 2D mammograms obtained with 15° and 40° X-ray tube angular range: a quantitative phantom study. In: Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference on biomedical engineering systems and technologies-BIOIMAGING vol 2, pp 184–191
Fluke Biomedical (2005) Mammographic accreditation phantom operators manual, Manual No. 18-220-1 Rev. 2
European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. (EUREF)
European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2013) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis Supplement EUREF.
European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2018) Protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of digital breast tomosynthesis systems (EUREF)
European Federation of Organisations For Medical Physics. Quality controls in digital mammography (2015) Protocol of the EFOMP mammo working group
The National Cancer Screening Service Board (2008) Guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. The National Cancer Screening Service Board, Dublin
https://medphys.royalsurrey.nhs.uk/nccpm/ . Accessed 27 Jun 2019
Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM (2012) The essential physics of medical imaging, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
Siewersen JH, Cunningham IA, Jaffray DA (2002) A framework for noise-power spectrum analysis of multidimensional images. Med Phys 29(11):2655–2671
Goodsitt MM, Chan HP, Schmitz A, Zelakiewicz S, Telang S, Hadjiiski L et al (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis: studies of effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images. Phys Med Biol 59(19):5883–5902
pubmed: 25211509
pmcid: 4264665
Dance DR, Christofides S, Maidment ADA, McLean ID, Ng KH (2014) Diagnostic radiology physics: a handbook for teachers and students. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
Artinis Medical Systems (2010) Contrast-detail phantom CDMAM 3.4 Manual-Version 7
Young KC, Brookes E, Hudson W, Halling-Brown MD (2012) CDMAM analyzer: software and instruction manual for automated determination of threshold contrast-Version 1.5.5
Karssmeijer N, Thijssen MAO (1996) Determination of contrast-detail curves of mammography systems by automated image analysis. Digital Mammography. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 155–160
Gang GJ, Tward DJ, Lee J, Siewerdsen JH (2010) Anatomical background and generalized detectability in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT. Med Phys 37(5):1948–1965
pubmed: 20527529
pmcid: 2862054
Gang GJ, Lee J, Stayman JW, Tward DJ, Zbijewski W, Prince JR, Siewerdsen JH (2011) Analysis of Fourier-domain task-based detectability index in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT in relation to human observer performance. Med Phys 38(4):1754–1768
pubmed: 21626910
pmcid: 3069989
Nosratieh A, Yang K, Aminololama-Shakeri S, Boone JM (2012) Comprehensive assessment of the slice sensitivity profiles in breast tomosynthesis and breast CT. Med Phys 39(12):7254–7261
pubmed: 23231276
pmcid: 3524074
Samei E, Murphy S, Richard S (2013) Assessment of multi-directional MTF for breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol 58(5):1649–1661
pubmed: 23422248
Meyblum E, Gardavaud F, Dao TH, Fournier V, Beaussart P, Pigneur F, Baranes L, Rahmouni A, Luciani A (2015) Breast tomosynthesis: dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom. DiagnInterv Imaging 96(9):931–939
Rodríguez-Ruiz A, Castillo M, Garayoa J, Chevalier M (2017) Evaluation of the technical performance of three different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems in the clinical environment. Phys Med 32(6):767–777
Maldera A, De Marco P, Colombo PE, Origgi D, Torresin A (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis: dose and image quality assessment. Phys Med 33:56–67
pubmed: 28010921
Mackenzie A, Marshall NW, Hadjipanteli A, Dance DR, Bosmans H, Young KC (2017) Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials. Phys Med Biol 62(6):2376–2397
pubmed: 28151431
Baldelli P, Bertolini M, Contillo A, Della Gala G, Golinelli P, Pagan L, Rivetti S, Taibi A (2018) A comparative study of physical image quality in digital and synthetic mammography from commercially available mammography systems. Phys Med Biol 63(16):165020
pubmed: 29972144