Comparing image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on radiologists’ reviews of phantom data

Background Previous studies have shown differences in technical image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems. However, quantitative image quality measurements may not necessarily fully reflect the clinical performance of DBT. Purpose To study the subjective image quality of five DBT systems manufactured by Fujifilm, GE, Hologic, Planmed, and Siemens using phantom images. Material and Methods A TOR MAM test object with polymethyl methacrylate plates was imaged on five DBT systems from different vendors. Three DBT acquisitions were performed at mean glandular doses of 1.0 mGy, 2.0 mGy, and 3.5 mGy while maintaining a constant phantom set-up. Eight DBT acquisitions with different test plate positions and phantom set-up thicknesses were performed at clinically applied dose levels. Additionally, three conventional two-dimensional mammogram images were acquired with different phantom thicknesses. Six radiologists ranked the systems based on the visibilities of the targets seen in the phantom images. Results In the DBT acquisitions performed at comparable dose levels, one system differed significantly from all other systems in microcalcification scores. When using site-specific DBT protocols, significant differences were found between the devices for microcalcification, filament, and low-contrast targets. A strong correlation was observed between the reviewer scores and radiation doses in DBT acquisitions, whereas no such correlation was observed in the 2D acquisitions. Conclusion In DBT acquisitions, dose level was found to be a major factor explaining image quality differences between the systems, regardless of other acquisition parameters. Most DBT systems performed equally well at similar dose levels.

[1]  E. Conant,et al.  Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round. , 2020, Radiology.

[2]  N. Houssami,et al.  Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation , 2019, Breast.

[3]  Roberto Blanco,et al.  A phantom study comparing technical image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems. , 2019, 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]  David Gur,et al.  Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. , 2019, Radiology.

[5]  Per Skaane,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program. , 2018, Radiology.

[6]  David Gur,et al.  Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial , 2018, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[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]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study , 2015, European Radiology.

[9]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[10]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. , 2013, Radiology.

[11]  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.

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

[13]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration , 2013, European Radiology.

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

[15]  D Origgi,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: Dose and image quality assessment. , 2017, 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.