Image quality and dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: A Monte Carlo study

Abstract Mammography is considered a standard technique for the early detection of breast cancer. However, its sensitivity is limited essentially due to the issue of the overlapping breast tissue. This limitation can be partially overcome, with a relatively new technique, called digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). For this technique, optimization of acquisition parameters which maximize image quality, whilst complying with the ALARA principle, continues to be an area of considerable research. The aim of this work was to study the best quantum energies that optimize the image quality with the lowest achievable dose in DBT and compare these results with the digital mammography (DM) ones. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the state-of-the-art computer program MCNPX 2.7.0 in order to generate several 2D cranio-caudal (CC) projections obtained during an acquisition of a standard DBT examination. Moreover, glandular absorbed doses and photon flux calculations, for each projection image, were performed. A homogeneous breast computational phantom with 50%/50% glandular/adipose tissue composition was used and two compressed breast thicknesses were evaluated: 4 cm and 8 cm. The simulated projection images were afterwards reconstructed with an algebraic reconstruction tool and the signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR) was calculated in order to evaluate the image quality in DBT and DM. Finally, a thorough comparison between the results obtained in terms of SDNR and dose assessment in DBT and DM was performed.

[1]  A Bravin,et al.  Compact x-ray sources for mammographic applications: Monte Carlo simulations of image quality. , 2009, Medical physics.

[2]  Lothar Batz,et al.  Spatial frequency-dependent signal-to-noise ratio as a generalized measure of image quality , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[3]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Optimization of operational conditions for direct digital mammography detectors for digital tomosynthesis , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[4]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Simulation of image detectors in radiology for determination of scatter-to-primary ratios using Monte Carlo radiation transport code MCNP/MCNPX. , 2010, Medical physics.

[5]  Andrea Botti,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full field digital mammography (FFDM): comparison of a system performance using a contrast detail phantom , 2009, Medical Imaging.

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

[7]  J. Boone,et al.  Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment. , 1999, Radiology.

[8]  Gabor T. Herman,et al.  Algebraic reconstruction techniques can be made computationally efficient [positron emission tomography application] , 1993, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[9]  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.

[10]  Mark A Helvie,et al.  Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. , 2010, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[11]  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.

[12]  Piernicola Oliva,et al.  Effect of different spectral distributions to image a contrast detail phantom in the mammography energy range , 2006 .

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

[14]  K Bliznakova,et al.  Image quality evaluation of breast tomosynthesis with synchrotron radiation. , 2012, Medical physics.

[15]  Polad M Shikhaliev.  The upper limits of the SNR in radiography and CT with polyenergetic x-rays. , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  M. Ragozzino.  Optimal photon energies with respect to absorbed dose for visualization of soft tissue masses with adipose tissue. , 1982, Medical physics.

[17]  Edward F. Bullard,et al.  Mean glandular dose estimation using MCNPX for a digital breast tomosynthesis system with tungsten/aluminum and tungsten/aluminum+silver x-ray anode-filter combinations. , 2008, Medical physics.

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

[19]  Haruhiko Machida,et al.  Optimizing parameters for flat-panel detector digital tomosynthesis. , 2010, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[20]  Per Skaane,et al.  Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. , 2013, Breast.

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

[22]  Piernicola Oliva,et al.  Start-to-end simulation of a Thomson source for mammography , 2010 .

[23]  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.