Image Quality Comparison between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms: A Qualitative and Quantitative Phantom Study

The recent introduction of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) have lead to improvements in sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer detection, especially in cases of tumors developed in dense breasts. Since DBT provides tomographic slices of an entire tissue volume, it reduces the inherent tissue overlapping limitation of digital mammography (DM). In addition, DBT combined with DM has been proven to decrease recall and increase invasive cancer detection rates in breast cancer screening. However, the employment of DBT+DM implies a not negligible increment of patients absorbed dose. Therefore, Synthesized mammograms (SMs) generated from the DBT data have been recently introduced to eliminate the need of an additional DM. However, several studies showed differences between DM and SM images and some studies found contrasting results in terms of image quality when DM and SM images were compared. In our phantom study, we objectively compare image quality of SM and DM images in terms of noise, spatial resolution and contrast properties. Additionally, a qualitative analysis of the ACR mammographic phantom was performed in both modalities to assess the detectability of different features. SM images were characterized by different texture with respect to DM images, showing lower overall performances in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio and modulation transfer function. However, the goal of SM images is to provide a useful two-dimensional guide complementary to the DBT dataset and the performances in terms of high-contrast features detectability were satisfactory in comparison to those obtained in DM.

[1]  S. Rose,et al.  Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  S. Chikarmane,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses of Synthetic Mammography in Screening. , 2017, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[3]  A. Rodríguez-Ruiz,et al.  Evaluation of the technical performance of three different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems in the clinical environment. , 2016, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[4]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms. , 2016, Medical physics.

[5]  Melissa A. Durand,et al.  Synthesized Mammography: Clinical Evidence, Appearance, and Implementation , 2018, Diagnostics.

[6]  Nehmat Houssami Evidence on Synthesized Two‐dimensional Mammography Versus Digital Mammography When Using Tomosynthesis (Three‐dimensional Mammography) for Population Breast Cancer Screening , 2018, Clinical breast cancer.

[7]  Davide Caramella,et al.  Evaluation of Dosimetric Properties in Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) - Development of a New Dose Index , 2018, BIODEVICES.

[8]  I. Sechopoulos A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. , 2013, Medical physics.

[9]  Laura Pagan,et al.  A comparative study of physical image quality in digital and synthetic mammography from commercially available mammography systems. , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  Manuela Durando,et al.  Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories , 2017, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[11]  Carrie M. Rochman,et al.  Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  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 , 2014, European Radiology.

[13]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Detector evaluation of a prototype amorphous selenium-based full field digital mammography system , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[14]  C. Quinn,et al.  Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set? , 2018, Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -).

[15]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? , 2016, Medical physics.

[16]  Average absorbed breast dose in mammography: a new possible dose index matching the requirements of the European Directive 2013/59/EURATOM , 2017, European Radiology Experimental.

[17]  C. Lehman,et al.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[18]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art. , 2015, Radiology.

[19]  Andrew Smith Synthesized 2 D Mammographic Imaging Theory and Clinical Performance , 2016 .

[20]  I Andersson,et al.  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. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[21]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  D. Jaffray,et al.  A framework for noise-power spectrum analysis of multidimensional images. , 2002, Medical physics.