Detection of microcalcification clusters by 2D-mammography and narrow and wide angle digital breast tomosynthesis

The aim of this study was to compare the detection of microcalcification clusters by human observers in breast images using 2D-mammography and narrow (15°/15 projections) and wide (50°/25 projections) angle digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Simulated microcalcification clusters with a range of microcalcification diameters (125 μm-275 μm) were inserted into 6 cm thick simulated compressed breasts. Breast images were produced with and without inserted microcalcification clusters using a set of image modelling tools, which were developed to represent clinical imaging by mammography and tomosynthesis. Commercially available software was used for image processing and image reconstruction. The images were then used in a series of 4-alternative forced choice (4AFC) human observer experiments conducted for signal detection with the microcalcification clusters as targets. The minimum detectable calcification diameter was found for each imaging modality: (i) 2D-mammography: 164±5 μm (ii) narrow angle DBT: 210±5 μm, (iii) wide angle DBT: 255±4 μm. A statistically significant difference was found between the minimum detectable calcification diameters that can be detected by the three imaging modalities. Furthermore, it was found that there was not a statistically significant difference between the results of the five observers that participated in this study. In conclusion, this study presents a method that quantifies the threshold diameter required for microcalcification detection, using high resolution, realistic images with observers, for the comparison of DBT geometries with 2D-mammography. 2Dmammography can visualise smaller detail diameter than both DBT imaging modalities and narrow-angle DBT can visualise a smaller detail diameter than wide-angle DBT.

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

[2]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of breast tomosynthesis: visibility of microcalcifications at different acquisition schemes , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[3]  Heang-Ping Chan,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments, and number of projection views. , 2014, Radiology.

[4]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system. , 2012, Medical physics.

[5]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Development and validation of a modelling framework for simulating 2D-mammography and breast tomosynthesis images , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  D. Dance,et al.  Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Oliver Diaz,et al.  Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities. , 2014, Medical physics.

[9]  D R Dance,et al.  Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[11]  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.

[12]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Generation of 3D synthetic breast tissue , 2016, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Characterisation of Screen Detected and Simulated Calcification Clusters in Digital Mammograms , 2014, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[14]  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.

[15]  Sara Gavenonis,et al.  Calcifications in the Breast and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2011, The breast journal.

[16]  A. Burgess.  Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. , 1995, Medical physics.

[17]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Performance comparison of breast imaging modalities using a 4AFC human observer study , 2015, Medical Imaging.