Digital breast tomosynthesis: Dose and image quality assessment.

The aim of this work was to evaluate how different acquisition geometries and reconstruction parameters affect the performance of four digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems (Senographe Essential - GE, Mammomat Inspiration - Siemens, Selenia Dimensions - Hologic and Amulet Innovality - Fujifilm) on the basis of a physical characterization. Average Glandular Dose (AGD) and image quality parameters such as in-plane/in-depth resolution, signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR) and artefact spread function (ASF) were examined. Measured AGD values resulted below EUREF limits for 2D imaging. A large variability was recorded among the investigated systems: the mean dose ratio DBT/2D ranged between 1.1 and 1.9. In-plane resolution was in the range: 2.2mm-1-3.8mm-1 in chest wall-nipple direction. A worse resolution was found for all devices in tube travel direction. In-depth resolution improved with increasing scan angle but was also affected by the choice of reconstruction and post-processing algorithms. The highest z-resolution was provided by Siemens (50°, FWHM=2.3mm) followed by GE (25°, FWHM=2.8mm), while the Fujifilm HR showed the lowest one, despite its wide scan angle (40°, FWHM=4.1mm). The ASF was dependent on scan angle: smaller range systems showed wider ASF curves; however a clear relationship was not found between scan angle and ASF, due to the different post processing and reconstruction algorithms. SDNR analysis, performed on Fujifilm system, demonstrated that pixel binning improves detectability for a fixed dose/projection. In conclusion, we provide a performance comparison among four DBT systems under a clinical acquisition mode.

[1]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  John M. Boone,et al.  Radiation dose and image-quality assessment in computed tomography , 2012 .

[3]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Experimental validation of a three-dimensional linear system model for breast tomosynthesis. , 2008, Medical physics.

[4]  A Tingberg,et al.  Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis--initial experiences. , 2011, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[6]  Consumer Protection,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[7]  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.

[8]  Tao Wu,et al.  A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. , 2004, Medical physics.

[9]  Bo Zhao,et al.  Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach. , 2008, Medical physics.

[10]  Bo Zhao,et al.  A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. , 2007, Medical physics.

[11]  I. Sechopoulos.  A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. , 2013, Medical physics.

[12]  D. Dance,et al.  Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Radiation dosimetry in digital breast tomosynthesis: report of AAPM Tomosynthesis Subcommittee Task Group 223. , 2014, Medical physics.

[14]  Petra Macaskill,et al.  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. , 2016, The Lancet. Oncology.

[15]  D. Dance,et al.  Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Haruhiko Machida,et al.  Optimizing parameters for flat-panel detector digital tomosynthesis. , 2010, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[17]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Three-dimensional linear system analysis for breast tomosynthesis. , 2008, Medical physics.

[18]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. , 2013, Radiology.

[19]  D. Dance.  Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. , 1990, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  Giovanni Mettivier,et al.  Dedicated breast computed tomography: Basic aspects. , 2015, Medical physics.

[21]  E. Samei,et al.  A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. , 1998, Medical physics.

[22]  K Bliznakova,et al.  In-line phase-contrast breast tomosynthesis: a phantom feasibility study at a synchrotron radiation facility , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  N Matela,et al.  Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study. , 2014, 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.

[24]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[25]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[26]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[27]  H Bosmans,et al.  Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  S Di Maria,et al.  Cancer risk estimation in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis using GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulations and voxel phantoms. , 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.

[29]  Baojun Li,et al.  Optimization of slice sensitivity profile for radiographic tomosynthesis. , 2007, Medical physics.

[30]  Per Skaane,et al.  Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis , 2016, Breast Cancer.

[31]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Toward an international consensus strategy for periodic quality control of digital breast tomosynthesis systems , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[32]  S. Duffy,et al.  TOMMY Trial (a comparison of tomosynthesis with digital mammography in the UK NHS breast screening programme) setting up a multicentre imaging trial , 2011, Breast Cancer Research.

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

[34]  N. Pallikarakis,et al.  Evaluation of the effect of silicone breast inserts on X-ray mammography and breast tomosynthesis images: A Monte Carlo simulation study. , 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.