Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has recently gained interest both for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Its employment has increased also in conjunction with digital mammography (DM), to improve cancer detection and reduce false positive recall rate. Synthetic mammograms (SMs) reconstructed from DBT data have been introduced to replace DM in the DBT + DM approach, for preserving the benefits of the dual-acquisition modality whilst reducing radiation dose and compression time. Therefore, different DBT models have been commercialized and the effective potential of each system has been investigated. In particular, wide-angle DBT was shown to provide better depth resolution than narrow-angle DBT, while narrow-angle DBT allows better identification of microcalcifications compared to wide-angle DBT. Given the increasing employment of SMs as supplement to DBT, a comparison of image quality between SMs obtained in narrow-angle and wide-angle DBT is of practical interest. Therefore, the aim of this phantom study was to evaluate and compare the image quality of SMs reconstructed from 15° (SM15) and 40° (SM40) DBT in a commercial system. Spatial resolution, noise and contrast properties were evaluated through the modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum, maps of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), image contrast, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and contrast-detail (CD) thresholds. SM40 expressed higher MTF than SM15, but also lower SNR and CNR levels. SM15 and SM40 were characterized by slight different texture, and a different behavior in terms of contrast was found. SM15 provided better CD performances than SM40. These results suggest that the employment of wide/narrow-angle DBT + SM images should be optimized based on the specific image task.

[1]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. , 2016, Radiology.

[2]  H Bosmans,et al.  Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  Premkumar Elangovan,et al.  The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2019, 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.

[4]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. , 2015, Radiology.

[5]  Frank W. Samuelson,et al.  Evaluation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as Replacement of Full-Field Digital Mammography Using an In Silico Imaging Trial , 2018, JAMA network open.

[6]  Davide Caramella,et al.  Image Quality Comparison between Synthetic 2D Mammograms Obtained with 15º and 40º X-ray Tube Angular Range: A Quantitative Phantom Study , 2020, BIOIMAGING.

[7]  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.

[8]  S. Rose,et al.  Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Luca Braglia,et al.  Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial. , 2018, Radiology.

[10]  C Ghetti,et al.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERISATION OF FOUR DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS SYSTEMS , 2018, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[11]  R. Cavicchioli,et al.  GPU acceleration of a model-based iterative method for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2020, Scientific Reports.

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

[13]  A. Holland,et al.  Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration , 2013, European Radiology.

[15]  D Origgi,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: Dose and image quality assessment. , 2017, 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.

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

[17]  Chuan Zhou,et al.  Synthesizing mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis , 2019, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  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 -).

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

[20]  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.

[21]  David Gur,et al.  Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. , 2019, Radiology.

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

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

[24]  Nehmat Houssami Evidence on Synthesized Two‐dimensional Mammography Versus Digital Mammography When Using Tomosynthesis (Three‐dimensional Mammography) for Population Breast Cancer Screening , 2018, Clinical breast cancer.

[25]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[26]  A. Rodríguez-Ruiz,et al.  Evaluation of the technical performance of three different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems in the clinical environment. , 2016, 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.

[27]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? , 2016, Medical physics.

[28]  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.

[29]  J. Bushberg The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging , 2001 .

[30]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Detection of Microcalcification Clusters in 2D-Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and the Relation to the Standard Method of Measuring Image Quality , 2016 .

[31]  K. Ng,et al.  Diagnostic Efficacy of Synthesized 2D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Multi-ethnic Malaysian Population , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[32]  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.

[33]  A. Luciani,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom. , 2015, Diagnostic and interventional imaging.

[34]  K. Straif,et al.  Breast-cancer screening--viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[36]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Generating Synthetic Mammograms From Reconstructed Tomosynthesis Volumes , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[37]  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.

[38]  Manuela Durando,et al.  Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories , 2017, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[39]  Maria Evelina Fantacci,et al.  Comprehensive assessment of image quality in synthetic and digital mammography: a quantitative comparison , 2019, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine.

[40]  Grace J Gang,et al.  Analysis of Fourier-domain task-based detectability index in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT in relation to human observer performance. , 2011, Medical physics.

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

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

[43]  I Andersson,et al.  The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[45]  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.

[46]  S. Kumita,et al.  Comparative analysis between synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for breast cancer detection and visibility , 2020, European journal of radiology open.

[47]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density , 2014, European Radiology.

[48]  Heang-Ping Chan,et al.  Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study. , 2017, Academic radiology.

[49]  M. Orsi,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a state-of-the-art review , 2019, Nuclear Medicine and Biomedical Imaging.

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

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

[52]  Roberto Blanco,et al.  A phantom study comparing technical image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems. , 2019, 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.

[53]  J. Boone,et al.  Comprehensive assessment of the slice sensitivity profiles in breast tomosynthesis and breast CT. , 2012, Medical physics.

[54]  L. Philpotts,et al.  Advances in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[55]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[56]  Petra Macaskill,et al.  Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. , 2016, The Lancet. Oncology.

[57]  E Samei,et al.  Assessment of multi-directional MTF for breast tomosynthesis , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[58]  Otto Zhou,et al.  Second generation stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system with faster scan time and wider angular span , 2017, Medical physics.

[59]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. , 2014, Radiology.

[60]  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.

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

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