The simulation of 3D mass models in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE This work proposes a new method of building 3D breast mass models with different morphological shapes and describes the validation of the realism of their appearance after simulation into 2D digital mammograms and breast tomosynthesis images. METHODS Twenty-five contrast enhanced MRI breast lesions were collected and each mass was manually segmented in the three orthogonal views: sagittal, coronal, and transversal. The segmented models were combined, resampled to have isotropic voxel sizes, triangularly meshed, and scaled to different sizes. These masses were referred to as nonspiculated masses and were then used as nuclei onto which spicules were grown with an iterative branching algorithm forming a total of 30 spiculated masses. These 55 mass models were projected into 2D projection images to obtain mammograms after image processing and into tomographic sequences of projection images, which were then reconstructed to form 3D tomosynthesis datasets. The realism of the appearance of these mass models was assessed by five radiologists via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis when compared to 54 real masses. All lesions were also given a breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS) score. The data sets of 2D mammography and tomosynthesis were read separately. The Kendall's coefficient of concordance was used for the interrater observer agreement assessment for the BIRADS scores per modality. Further paired analysis, using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, of the BIRADS assessment between 2D and tomosynthesis was separately performed for the real masses and for the simulated masses. RESULTS The area under the ROC curves, averaged over all observers, was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [0.50, 0.66]) for the 2D study, and 0.67 (95% confidence interval [0.55, 0.79]) for the tomosynthesis study. According to the BIRADS scores, the nonspiculated and the spiculated masses varied in their degrees of malignancy from normal (BIRADS 1) to highly suggestive for malignancy (BIRADS 5) indicating the required variety of shapes and margins of these models. The assessment of the BIRADS scores for all observers indicated good agreement based on Kendall's coefficient for both the 2D and the tomosynthesis evaluations. The paired analysis of the BIRADS scores between 2D and tomosynthesis for each observer revealed consistent behavior for the real and simulated masses. CONCLUSIONS A database of 3D mass models, with variety of shapes and margins, was validated for the realism of their appearance for 2D digital mammography and for breast tomosynthesis. This database is suitable for use in future observer performance studies whether in virtual clinical trials or in patient images with simulated lesions.

[1]  J. S. Laughlin,et al.  Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. , 1979, Radiology.

[2]  S. Glick,et al.  Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2009, Medical physics.

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

[4]  Alessandro Olivo,et al.  Technical note: further development of a resolution modification routine for the simulation of the modulation transfer function of digital x-ray detectors. , 2011, Medical physics.

[5]  N W Marshall,et al.  A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  E Shaheen,et al.  Simulation of 3D objects into breast tomosynthesis images. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[7]  K Bliznakova,et al.  A three-dimensional breast software phantom for mammography simulation. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  L. Costaridou,et al.  Simulating the mammographic appearance of circumscribed lesions , 2003, European Radiology.

[9]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  The influence of position within the breast on microcalcification detectability in continuous tube motion digital breast tomosynthesis , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[10]  S. Rossitti,et al.  Energetic and spatial constraints of arterial networks. , 1995, Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria.

[11]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Improved in-plane visibility of tumors using breast tomosynthesis , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[12]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data. , 2013, Medical physics.

[13]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Personalized estimates of radiation dose from dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population and comparison with diagnostic mammography , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Digital mammography and tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis. , 2011, Expert opinion on medical diagnostics.

[15]  Jovan G. Brankov,et al.  Development of a computational three-dimensional breast lesion phantom model , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[16]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An anthropomorphic breast model for breast imaging simulation and optimization. , 2011, Academic radiology.

[17]  T. R. Fewell,et al.  Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. , 1997, Medical physics.

[18]  M Ruschin,et al.  Using simple mathematical functions to simulate pathological structures--input for digital mammography clinical trial. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[19]  C D Murray,et al.  The Physiological Principle of Minimum Work: I. The Vascular System and the Cost of Blood Volume. , 1926, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Quantification of scattered radiation in projection mammography: four practical methods compared. , 2012, Medical physics.

[21]  Charles E Metz,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[22]  S. Woolf,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[23]  K. Sandau,et al.  On the bifurcation of blood vessels--Wilhelm Roux's doctoral thesis (Jena 1878)--a seminal work for biophysical modelling in developmental biology. , 1997, Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft.

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

[25]  D R Dance,et al.  Simulation and assessment of realistic breast lesions using fractal growth models , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Simulation of mammographic lesions. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[27]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Optimized generation of high resolution breast anthropomorphic software phantoms. , 2012, Medical physics.

[28]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[29]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography. , 2009, Medical physics.

[30]  J. Boone,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. , 2001, Radiology.

[31]  J. Dobbins.  Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads. , 2009, Medical physics.

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

[33]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. , 2007, Medical physics.

[34]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: inherent spatial resolution. , 1995, Medical physics.

[35]  J Michael O'Connor,et al.  Generation of voxelized breast phantoms from surgical mastectomy specimens. , 2013, Medical physics.

[36]  Aruna A. Vedula,et al.  A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. , 2006, Medical physics.

[37]  Caroline Boggis,et al.  Evaluating the realism of synthetically generated mammographic lesions: an observer study , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[38]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Evaluation of an improved algorithm for producing realistic 3D breast software phantoms: application for mammography. , 2010, Medical physics.

[39]  M Ruschin,et al.  Visibility of microcalcification clusters and masses in breast tomosynthesis image volumes and digital mammography: a 4AFC human observer study. , 2012, Medical physics.

[40]  John M Boone,et al.  Methodology for generating a 3D computerized breast phantom from empirical data. , 2009, Medical physics.

[41]  S. Obenauer,et al.  Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification , 2005, European Radiology.

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

[43]  H. Bosmans,et al.  The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. , 2011, Medical physics.

[44]  J. Kaufhold,et al.  A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography. , 2002, Medical physics.

[45]  W. Paul Segars,et al.  Generation of a suite of 3D computer-generated breast phantoms from a limited set of human subject data. , 2013, Medical physics.

[46]  R. Siddon.  Fast calculation of the exact radiological path for a three-dimensional CT array. , 1985, Medical physics.

[47]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. , 2013, European journal of cancer.

[48]  M Ruschin,et al.  In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. , 2010, Medical physics.