Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems

The aim of this work was to propose system sharpness parameters for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems that include the influence of focus size and focus motion for use in quality assurance protocols. X-ray focus size was measured using a multiple pinhole test object, while detector presampling modulation transfer function (MTF) was measured from projection images of a 10 cm × 10 cm, 1 mm thick steel edge, for the Siemens Inspiration and Hologic Selenia Dimensions DBT systems. The height of the edge above the table was then varied from 1 to 78 mm. The MTF expected from theory for the projection images was calculated from the measured detector MTF, focus size MTF and focus motion MTF and was compared against measured curves. Two methods were used to measure the in-plane MTF in the DBT volume: a tungsten wire of diameter 25 µm and an Al edge 0.2 mm thick, both imaged with a 15 mm thick poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) plate. The in-depth point spread function (PSF) was measured using an angled tungsten wire. The full 3D MTF was estimated with a 0.5 mm diameter aluminium bead held in a 45 mm thick PMMA phantom, with the bead 15 and 65 mm above the table. Inspiration DBT projection images are saved at native detector resolution (85 µm), while the Dimensions re-bins projections to 140 µm pixels (2 × 2 binning); both systems used 2 × 2 binning of projection data before reconstruction. The 50% point for the MTF (MTF(0.50)) measured in the DBT projection images for the tube-travel direction fell as a function of height above the table from 3.60 to 0.90 mm(-1) for the Inspiration system and from 2.50 to 1.20 mm(-1) for the Dimensions unit. The maximum deviation of measured MTF(0.50) from the calculated value was 13%. MTF(0.50) measured in-plane (tube-travel direction) fell as a function of height above the table from 1.66 to 0.97 mm(-1) for the Inspiration system and from 2.21 to 1.31 mm(-1) for the Dimensions system. The full-width half-maximum for the in-depth PSF was 3.0 and 5.9 mm for the Inspiration and Dimensions systems, respectively. There was no difference in the 3D MTF curves, sectioned in the tube-travel direction, for bead heights of 15 and 65 mm above the table. A 25 µm tungsten wire held within a 15 mm thick PMMA plate was found to be a suitable test object for measurement of in-plane MTF. Evaluation of MTF as a function of height above the table, both in the projection images and in the reconstructed planes, provides important information on the impact of focus size and focus motion on the DBT system's imaging performance.

[1]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Anatomical background and generalized detectability in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT. , 2010, Medical physics.

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

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

[4]  Alessandro Olivo,et al.  Technical note: further development of a resolution modification routine for the simulation of the modulation transfer function of digital x-ray detectors. , 2011, Medical physics.

[5]  E L Nickoloff,et al.  Mammographic resolution: influence of focal spot intensity distribution and geometry. , 1990, Medical physics.

[6]  F R Verdun,et al.  Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  David Gur,et al.  Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  R M Nishikawa,et al.  Task-based assessment of breast tomosynthesis: effect of acquisition parameters and quantum noise. , 2010, Medical physics.

[9]  Kenneth G. A. Gilhuijs,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results , 2009, European Radiology.

[10]  Avinash C. Kak,et al.  Principles of computerized tomographic imaging , 2001, Classics in applied mathematics.

[11]  Bo Zhao,et al.  Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach. , 2008, Medical physics.

[12]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Toward an international consensus strategy for periodic quality control of digital breast tomosynthesis systems , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[13]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Technical Evaluation of a Digital Breast Tomosynthesis System , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[14]  I. Cunningham Applied Linear-Systems Theory , 2000 .

[15]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  3D task-based performance assessment metrics for optimization of performance and dose in breast tomosynthesis , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[16]  H. Bosmans,et al.  The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. , 2011, Medical physics.

[17]  Bo Zhao,et al.  A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. , 2007, Medical physics.

[18]  E. Samei,et al.  A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. , 1998, Medical physics.

[19]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Investigating the potential for super-resolution in digital breast tomosynthesis , 2011, Medical Imaging.

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

[21]  Michael J. Flynn,et al.  Spatial resolution of x-ray tomosynthesis in relation to computed tomography for coronal/sagittal images of the knee , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[22]  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.

[23]  Ying Chen,et al.  Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function. , 2006, Medical physics.

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

[25]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Investigation of the effect of tube motion in breast tomosynthesis: continuous or step and shoot? , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[26]  N W Marshall,et al.  Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[28]  Gyula Faigel,et al.  X-Ray Holography , 1999 .

[29]  Martin J. Yaffe,et al.  The effect of lag on image quality for a digital breast tomosynthesis system , 2009, Medical Imaging.

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

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

[32]  Michael J. Flynn,et al.  Measurement of the spatial resolution of a clinical volumetric computed tomography scanner using a sphere phantom , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[33]  Aldo Badano,et al.  A statistical, task-based evaluation method for three-dimensional x-ray breast imaging systems using variable-background phantoms. , 2010, Medical physics.

[34]  N W Marshall,et al.  A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[35]  Marc Kachelriess,et al.  Assessment of spatial resolution in CT , 2008, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[36]  Matthias Bertram,et al.  Method for the determination of the modulation transfer function (MTF) in 3D x-ray imaging systems with focus on correction for finite extent of test objects , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[37]  Wei Zhao,et al.  The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2011, Medical physics.

[38]  N W Marshall,et al.  Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[40]  Michael J. Flynn,et al.  Direct measurement of resolution in volumetric imaging systems , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium - NSS'94.