Task-based assessment of breast tomosynthesis: effect of acquisition parameters and quantum noise.

PURPOSE Tomosynthesis is a promising modality for breast imaging. The appearance of the tomosynthesis reconstructed image is greatly affected by the choice of acquisition and reconstruction parameters. The purpose of this study was to investigate the limitations of tomosynthesis breast imaging due to scan parameters and quantum noise. Tomosynthesis image quality was assessed based on performance of a mathematical observer model in a signal-known exactly (SKE) detection task. METHODS SKE detectability (d') was estimated using a prewhitening observer model. Structured breast background was simulated using filtered noise. Detectability was estimated for designer nodules ranging from 0.05 to 0.8 cm in diameter. Tomosynthesis slices were reconstructed using iterative maximum-likelihood expectation-maximization. The tomosynthesis scan angle was varied between 15 degrees and 60 degrees, the number of views between 11 and 41 and the total number of x-ray quanta was infinity, 6 X 10(5), and 6 x 10(4). Detectability in tomosynthesis was compared to that in a single projection. RESULTS For constant angular sampling distance, increasing the angular scan range increased detectability for all signal sizes. Large-scale signals were little affected by quantum noise or angular sampling. For small-scale signals, quantum noise and insufficient angular sampling degraded detectability. At high quantum noise levels, angular step size of 3 degrees or below was sufficient to avoid image degradation. At lower quantum noise levels, increased angular sampling always resulted in increased detectability. The ratio of detectability in the tomosynthesis slice to that in a single projection exhibited a peak that shifted to larger signal sizes when the angular range increased. For a given angular range, the peak shifted toward smaller signals when the number of views was increased. The ratio was greater than unity for all conditions evaluated. CONCLUSION The effect of acquisition parameters on lesion detectability depends on signal size. Tomosynthesis scan angle had an effect on detectability for all signals sizes, while quantum noise and angular sampling only affected the detectability small-scale signals.

[1]  A E Burgess.  Visual signal detection with two-component noise: low-pass spectrum effects. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[2]  Gene Gindi,et al.  Low-contrast lesion detection in tomosynthetic breast imaging using a realistic breast phantom , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

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

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

[6]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method , 1997 .

[7]  James T Dobbins,et al.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  M H Buonocore,et al.  Monte Carlo validation in diagnostic radiological imaging. , 2000, Medical Physics (Lancaster).

[9]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. , 2009, Medical physics.

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

[11]  Andrew Maidment,et al.  Evaluation of a photon-counting breast tomosynthesis imaging system , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[12]  Phillip C. Bunch.  Advances in high-speed mammographic image quality , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[13]  Devon J Godfrey,et al.  Stochastic noise characteristics in matrix inversion tomosynthesis (MITS). , 2009, Medical physics.

[14]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. , 2006, Medical physics.

[15]  Bo Zhao,et al.  Optimization of Tomosynthesis Acquisition Parameters: Angular Range and Number of Projections , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[16]  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.

[17]  James T. Dobbins,et al.  Practical strategies for the clinical implementation of matrix inversion tomosynthesis (MITS) , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

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

[20]  Michael P. Kempston,et al.  Resolution at oblique incidence angles of a flat panel imager for breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[21]  Ian Shaw,et al.  Design and performance of the prototype full field breast tomosynthesis system with selenium based flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[22]  Xiaochuan Pan,et al.  Enhanced imaging of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis through improved image-reconstruction algorithms. , 2009, Medical physics.

[23]  E. Samei,et al.  Simulation of subtle lung nodules in projection chest radiography. , 1997, Radiology.

[24]  Renuka Uppaluri,et al.  Effect of acquisition parameters on image quality in digital tomosynthesis , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[25]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  An Ideal Observer for a Model of X-Ray Imaging in Breast Parenchymal Tissue , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[26]  D. Berry,et al.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer , 2005 .

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

[28]  D. Kopans,et al.  Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. , 2003, Medical physics.

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

[30]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[31]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[32]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[33]  Arthur E Burgess,et al.  Signal detection in power-law noise: effect of spectrum exponents. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[34]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[35]  Jeffrey H Siewerdsen,et al.  Comparison of model and human observer performance for detection and discrimination tasks using dual-energy x-ray images. , 2008, Medical physics.

[36]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Image Quality Measurements in Breast Tomosynthesis , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[37]  P. C. Johns,et al.  X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.

[38]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Effect of non-isotropic detector blur on microcalcification detectability in tomosynthesis , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[39]  Maryellen L. Giger,et al.  Power Spectral Analysis of Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment , 2008, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[40]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Optimized image acquisition for breast tomosynthesis in projection and reconstruction space. , 2009, Medical physics.

[41]  Emil Y. Sidky,et al.  Development of a model for breast tomosynthesis image acquisition , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[42]  Tao Wu,et al.  The Dependence of Tomosynthesis Imaging Performance on the Number of Scan Projections , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[43]  Tao Wu,et al.  Lesion Visibility in Low Dose Tomosynthesis , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.