Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full field digital mammography (FFDM): comparison of a system performance using a contrast detail phantom

To evaluate performance (image signal to noise ratio) of a digital mammographic system working in 2D planar versus tomosynthesis modality, a contrast detail phantom was developed embedding 1 cm plexyglas, including 49 holes of different diameter and depth, between two layers containing a breast simulating material. The acquisition protocol included 15 low dose projections (reconstructed 1mm-thick slices) and a 2D view. Using an automatic software analysis tool, the signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR) was evaluated. SDNR in the DBT images was about a factor two higher than with FFDM (P<1E-4). A more complete visual detection experiment is underway.

[1]  E. Samei,et al.  Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. , 2007, Medical physics.

[2]  D. Kopans,et al.  Voting strategy for artifact reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[3]  Renato Campanini,et al.  Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[4]  A. Karellas,et al.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade. , 2008, Medical physics.

[5]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  A. Nitrosi,et al.  On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. , 2003, Medical physics.

[7]  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.

[8]  Serge Muller,et al.  Thick Slices from Tomosynthesis Data Sets: Phantom Study for the Evaluation of Different Algorithms , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[9]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system , 2004 .

[11]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

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

[13]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[14]  B. Krauskopf,et al.  Proc of SPIE , 2003 .

[15]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. , 2005, Medical physics.

[16]  Raffaella Rossi,et al.  Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors. , 2008, Medical physics.

[17]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[18]  A. Rose.  The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. , 1948, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[19]  Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study , 2008 .

[20]  J. Rakowski,et al.  A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for C-arm mammography tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

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

[22]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. , 2006, Medical physics.

[23]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. , 2001, Radiology.

[24]  P. Skaane,et al.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. , 2007, Radiology.

[25]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A comparative contrast-detail study of five medical displays. , 2008, Medical physics.

[26]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. , 2008, Radiology.

[27]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

[28]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography , 2007, European Radiology.

[29]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[30]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Interval carcinomas in the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[31]  Tao Wu,et al.  A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. , 2004, Medical physics.

[32]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. , 2000, Medical physics.

[33]  C J D'Orsi,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. , 2000, Academic radiology.