A comparative study of physical image quality in digital and synthetic mammography from commercially available mammography systems.

We present a comparison between full field digital mammography and synthetic mammography, performed on several mammography systems from four different manufacturers. The analysis is carried out on both the digital and synthetic images of two commercially available mammography phantoms, and focuses on a set of objective metrics that encode the geometrical appearance of imaging features of diagnostic interest. In particular, we measured sizes and contrasts of several clusters of microcalcification specks, shapes and contrasts of circular masses, and the power spectrum of background regions mimicking the heterogeneous texture of the breast parenchyma. Despite the potential issues of tomosynthesis in terms of image blurring, the synthetic images do not highlight any globally significant differences in the rendering of the details of interest, when compared to the original digital mammograms: relative contrasts are generally preserved, as well as the geometry of broad structures. We conclude that, as far as the considered objective metrics are concerned, the image quality of synthetic mammography does not exhibit significant differences with respect to the one of full field digital mammography, for all the considered systems.

[1]  R M Nishikawa,et al.  Validation of a power-law noise model for simulating small-scale breast tissue , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  S. Gavenonis,et al.  Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population. , 2017, Radiology.

[3]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

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

[5]  John M Boone,et al.  Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images. , 2008, Medical physics.

[6]  D. Dance,et al.  Design and application of a structured phantom for detection performance comparison between breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. , 2014, Radiology.

[8]  The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography. , 2014, Clinical radiology.

[9]  N. Houssami,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Two-Dimensional Images versus Full-Field Digital Mammography for Population Screening: Outcomes from the Verona Screening Program. , 2017, Radiology.

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

[11]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. , 2014, Radiology.

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

[13]  Ingrid Reiser,et al.  Comparison of power spectra for tomosynthesis projections and reconstructed images. , 2009, Medical physics.

[14]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. , 2016, Radiology.

[15]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[16]  Rongping Zeng,et al.  Evaluating the sensitivity of the optimization of acquisition geometry to the choice of reconstruction algorithm in digital breast tomosynthesis through a simulation study. , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[19]  J. Boone,et al.  Association between power law coefficients of the anatomical noise power spectrum and lesion detectability in breast imaging modalities. , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Optimization of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisition parameters for human observers: effect of reconstruction algorithms , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Arthur E. Burgess,et al.  Mammographic structure: data preparation and spatial statistics analysis , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[22]  Jung Hee Shin,et al.  Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer , 2016, European Radiology.