Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.

A comparison, in terms of the optimal energy that maximizes the image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) was performed in a MAMMOMAT Inspiration system (Siemens) based on amorphous selenium flat panel detector. In this paper we measured the image quality by the signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), and the patient risk by the mean glandular dose (MGD). Using these quantities we compared the optimal voltage that maximizes the image quality both in breast tomosynthesis and standard mammography acquisition mode. The comparison for the two acquisition modes was performed for a W/Rh anode filter combinations by using a 4.5 cm tissue equivalent mammography phantom. Moreover, in order to check if the used equipment was quantum noise limited, the relation of the relative noise with respect to the detector dose was evaluated. Results showed that in the tomosynthesis acquisition mode the optimal voltage is 28 kV, whereas in standard mammography the optimal voltage is 30 kV. The automatic exposure control (AEC) of the system selects 28 kV as optimal voltage both for DBT and DM. Monte Carlo simulations showed a qualitative agreement with the AEC selection system, since an optimal monochromatic energy of 20 keV was found both for DBT and DM. Moreover, the check about the noise showed that the system is not completely quantum noise limited, and this issue could explain the experimental slight difference in terms of optimal voltage between DBT and DM. According to these results, the use of higher voltage settings is not justified for the improvement of the image quality during a DBT examination.

[1]  Anita Nosratieh,et al.  Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies. , 2012, Medical physics.

[2]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography. , 2008, Medical physics.

[3]  D R Dance,et al.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings , 2008, European Radiology.

[5]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. , 2006, Medical physics.

[6]  G. Spyrou,et al.  A Monte Carlo study of the influence of focal spot size, intensity distribution, breast thickness and magnification on spatial resolution of an a-Se digital mammography system using the generalized MTF. , 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.

[7]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. , 2012, Radiology.

[8]  R Bouwman,et al.  An alternative method for noise analysis using pixel variance as part of quality control procedures on digital mammography systems. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.