Comprehensive assessment of image quality in synthetic and digital mammography: a quantitative comparison

Recent advances in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) technology were focused on the reconstruction of 2D “Synthesized Mammograms” (SMs) from DBT dataset. The introduction of SMs could avoid an additional digital mammography (DM) which is often required in complement to DBT examinations. Therefore, breast absorbed dose and compression time can be significantly reduced in DBT+SM procedures with respect to DBT+DM modality. However, to date, a limited number of studies have objectively characterised the image quality of SMs with respect to DM images. Therefore, the aim of this phantom study was to comprehensively compare SMs and DM images in terms of several image quality parameters. A Selenia Dimensions system (Hologic, Bedford, Mass, USA) was employed in this work. Five different phantoms were adopted to study noise, contrast and spatial resolution properties of the images. Specifically, noise power spectrum (NPS), maps of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF) and contrast-detail (CD) thresholds were evaluated both for SM and DM modalities. SMs were characterised by different texture, noise and SNR spatial distribution properties with respect to DM images. Additionally, while in some conditions SM provides higher CNR than DM, lower overall performances in terms spatial resolution and CD curves were found in comparison to DM images. Therefore, given the great benefits of SMs in terms of dose and compression time saving, further clinical investigations on SMs image quality properties could be of practical interest to integrate our findings.

[1]  Paolo Peterlongo,et al.  Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[2]  Alberto Torresin,et al.  Quality Controls in Digital Mammography protocol of the EFOMP Mammo Working group. , 2018, 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.

[3]  J. Strzelczyk The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging , 2003 .

[4]  A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening. , 2018, European journal of radiology.

[5]  C. Quinn,et al.  Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set? , 2018, Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -).

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

[7]  R. Edward Hendrick,et al.  Mammography quality control manual , 1999 .

[8]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms. , 2016, Medical physics.

[9]  N. Karssemeijer,et al.  Determination of contrast-detail curves of mammography systems by automated image analysis 1 , 2005 .

[10]  Carrie M. Rochman,et al.  Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  BreastCheck Guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. , 2003 .

[12]  Colleen H. Neal,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: studies of the effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? , 2016, 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]  David Gur,et al.  Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[17]  Melissa A. Durand,et al.  Synthesized Mammography: Clinical Evidence, Appearance, and Implementation , 2018, Diagnostics.

[18]  Laura Pagan,et al.  A comparative study of physical image quality in digital and synthetic mammography from commercially available mammography systems. , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[20]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  I Sechopoulos,et al.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. , 2015, Breast.

[22]  J. Boone,et al.  Comprar Essential Physics Of Medical Imaging, International Edition | Jerrold T. Bushberg | 9781451118100 | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins , 2012 .

[23]  D. Jaffray,et al.  A framework for noise-power spectrum analysis of multidimensional images. , 2002, Medical physics.

[24]  S. Chikarmane,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses of Synthetic Mammography in Screening. , 2017, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[25]  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.

[26]  E. Halpern,et al.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. , 2013, Radiology.

[27]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art. , 2015, Radiology.

[28]  Andrew Smith Synthesized 2 D Mammographic Imaging Theory and Clinical Performance , 2016 .

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

[30]  Gisella Gennaro,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study , 2010, European Radiology.

[31]  Davide Caramella,et al.  Image Quality Comparison between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms: A Qualitative and Quantitative Phantom Study , 2019, BIOIMAGING.

[32]  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.