Optimized signal of calcifications in wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis: a virtual imaging trial.

Breast neoplasms Computer simulation Mammography

Journal

European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 30 10 2023
accepted: 24 02 2024
revised: 01 02 2024
medline: 28 3 2024
pubmed: 28 3 2024
entrez: 28 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Evaluate microcalcification detectability in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and synthetic 2D mammography (SM) for different acquisition setups using a virtual imaging trial (VIT) approach. Medio-lateral oblique (MLO) DBT acquisitions on eight patients were performed at twice the automatic exposure controlled (AEC) dose. The noise was added to the projections to simulate a given dose trajectory. Virtual microcalcification models were added to a given projection set using an in-house VIT framework. Three setups were evaluated: (1) standard acquisition with 25 projections at AEC dose, (2) 25 projections with a convex dose distribution, and (3) sparse setup with 13 projections, every second one over the angular range. The total scan dose and angular range remained constant. DBT volume reconstruction and synthetic mammography image generation were performed using a Siemens prototype algorithm. Lesion detectability was assessed through a Jackknife-alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) study with six observers. For DBT, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97 ± 0.01 for the standard, 0.95 ± 0.02 for the convex, and 0.89 ± 0.03 for the sparse setup. There was no significant difference between standard and convex dose distributions (p = 0.309). Sparse projections significantly reduced detectability (p = 0.001). Synthetic images had a higher AUC with the convex setup, though not significantly (p = 0.435). DBT required four times more reading time than synthetic mammography. A convex setup did not significantly improve detectability in DBT compared to the standard setup. Synthetic images exhibited a non-significant increase in detectability with the convex setup. Sparse setup significantly reduced detectability in both DBT and synthetic mammography. This virtual imaging trial study allowed the design and efficient testing of different dose distribution trajectories with real mammography images, using a dose-neutral protocol. • In DBT, a convex dose distribution did not increase the detectability of microcalcifications compared to the current standard setup but increased detectability for the SM images. • A sparse setup decreased microcalcification detectability in both DBT and SM images compared to the convex and current clinical setups. • Optimal microcalcification cluster detection in the system studied was achieved using either the standard or convex dose setting, with the default number of projections.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38546790
doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10712-9
pii: 10.1007/s00330-024-10712-9
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.

Références

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
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131391 pubmed: 24484063
Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271:664–671
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131530 pubmed: 24475859
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 17:1105–1113
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-2 pubmed: 27345635
Zuckerman SP, Sprague BL, Weaver DL, Herschorn SD, Conant EF (2020) Multicenter evaluation of breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis in combination with synthetic versus digital mammography. Radiology 297:545–553
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200240 pubmed: 33048032
Vancoillie L, Cockmartin L, Marshall N, Bosmans H (2021) The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: a phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography. Med Phys 48:6270–6292
doi: 10.1002/mp.15171 pubmed: 34407213
Ikejimba LC, Salad J, Graff CG et al (2021) Assessment of task-based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Med Phys 48:1026–1038
doi: 10.1002/mp.14568 pubmed: 33128288
Mackenzie A, Thomson EL, Mitchell M et al (2022) Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging. Eur Radiol 32:806–814
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08197-x pubmed: 34331118
Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY et al (2019) Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 29:319–329
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5585-x pubmed: 29931560
Chikarmane S (2022) Synthetic Mammography: Review of Benefits and Drawbacks in Clinical Use. J Breast Imaging 4:124–134
doi: 10.1093/jbi/wbac008 pubmed: 38417004
Vancoillie L, Marshall N, Cockmartin L et al (2020) Verification of the accuracy of a hybrid breast imaging simulation framework for virtual clinical trial applications. J Med Imaging 7:042804
Marshall NW, Bosmans H (2022) Performance evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis systems: physical methods and experimental data. Phys Med Biol 67:22TR03. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ac9a35
Das M, Gifford HC, O’Connor JM, Glick SJ (2009) Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 36:1976–1984
doi: 10.1118/1.3116902 pubmed: 19610286 pmcid: 2832061
Hu YH, Zhao W (2011) The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 38:2455–2466
doi: 10.1118/1.3570580 pubmed: 21776781 pmcid: 3158124
Vecchio S, Albanese A, Vignoli P, Taibi A (2011) A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Eur Radiol 21:1207–1213
doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-2041-y pubmed: 21193910
Abadi E, Segars WP, Tsui BMW et al (2020) Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review. J Med Imaging 7:042805-042801–042840
doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.7.4.042805
Barufaldi B, Maidment ADA, Dustler M et al (2021) Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging system evaluation and optimisation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 195:363–371
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncab080 pubmed: 34144597 pmcid: 8507451
Marshall NW, Bosmans H (2022) Performance evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis systems: comparison of current virtual clinical trial methods. Phys Med Biol 67:22TR04. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ac9a34
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:e185474
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5474 pubmed: 30646401 pmcid: 6324392
Barufaldi B, Acciavatti RJ, Conant EF, Maidment ADA (2024) Impact of super-resolution and image acquisition on the detection of calcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 34:193–203
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10103-6 pubmed: 37572187
Mackenzie A, Kaur S, Thomson EL et al (2021) Effect of glandularity on the detection of simulated cancers in planar, tomosynthesis, and synthetic 2D imaging of the breast using a hybrid virtual clinical trial. Med Phys 48:6859–6868
doi: 10.1002/mp.15216 pubmed: 34496038
Barufaldi B, Vent TL, Bakic PR, Maidment ADA (2022) Computer simulations of case difficulty in digital breast tomosynthesis using virtual clinical trials. Med Phys 49:2220–2232
doi: 10.1002/mp.15553 pubmed: 35212403
Horvat JV, Keating DM, Rodrigues-Duarte H, Morris EA, Mango VL (2019) Calcifications at digital breast tomosynthesis: imaging features and biopsy techniques. Radiographics 39:307–318
doi: 10.1148/rg.2019180124 pubmed: 30681901
Shaheen E, Van Ongeval C, Zanca F et al (2011) The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 38:6659–6671
doi: 10.1118/1.3662868 pubmed: 22149848
Warren LM, Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Young KC (2013) Comparison of the x-ray attenuation properties of breast calcifications, aluminium, hydroxyapatite and calcium oxalate. Phys Med Biol 58:N103-113
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/7/N103 pubmed: 23470559
Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Workman A et al (2012) Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system. Med Phys 39:2721–2734
doi: 10.1118/1.4704525 pubmed: 22559643
Hakansson M, Svensson S, Zachrisson S et al (2010) VIEWDEX: an efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 139:42–51
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncq057 pubmed: 20200105
Chakraborty DP (2006) Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method. Acad Radiol 13:1187–1193
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2006.06.016 pubmed: 16979067
Zackrisson S, Lang K, Rosso A et al (2018) One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol 19:1493–1503
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30521-7 pubmed: 30322817
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71:141–150
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008 pubmed: 26707815
van Winkel SL, Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Appelman L et al (2021) Impact of artificial intelligence support on accuracy and reading time in breast tomosynthesis image interpretation: a multi-reader multi-case study. Eur Radiol 31:8682–8691
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07992-w pubmed: 33948701 pmcid: 8523448
Chan HP, Helvie MA (2021) Using single-view wide-angle DBT with AI for breast cancer screening. Radiology 300:537–538
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021211203 pubmed: 34227888
Durand MA (2018) Synthesized mammography: clinical evidence, appearance, and implementation. Diagnostics (Basel) 8:22. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics8020022
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics8020022 pubmed: 29617294
Re A, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120674
Monnin P, Gnesin S, Verdun FR, Marshall NW (2019) Generalized SDNR analysis based on signal and noise power. Phys Med 64:10–15
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.06.005 pubmed: 31515008
Hadjipanteli A, Elangovan P, Mackenzie A et al (2017) The effect of system geometry and dose on the threshold detectable calcification diameter in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol 62:858–877
doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa4f6e pubmed: 28072582
Koetzier LR, Mastrodicasa D, Szczykutowicz TP et al (2023) Deep learning image reconstruction for CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 306:e221257
doi: 10.1148/radiol.221257 pubmed: 36719287
Marshall NW, Bosmans H (2012) Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems. Phys Med Biol 57:7629–7650
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/22/7629 pubmed: 23123601
Zhou J, Zhao B, Zhao W (2007) A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. Med Phys 34:1098–1109
doi: 10.1118/1.2558160 pubmed: 17441255

Auteurs

Liesbeth Vancoillie (L)

Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Liesbeth.vancoillie@duke.edu.
CVIT, Duke University, 2424 Erwin Road, Suite 302, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. Liesbeth.vancoillie@duke.edu.

Lesley Cockmartin (L)

Department of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Ferdinand Lueck (F)

Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemensstraße 1, 91301, Forchheim, Germany.

Nicholas Marshall (N)

Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Machteld Keupers (M)

Department of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Ralf Nanke (R)

Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemensstraße 1, 91301, Forchheim, Germany.

Steffen Kappler (S)

Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemensstraße 1, 91301, Forchheim, Germany.

Chantal Van Ongeval (C)

Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Hilde Bosmans (H)

Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH