In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.

PURPOSE The purpose of this work was to evaluate the visibility of simulated lesions in 2D digita mammography (DM) and breast tomosynthesis (BT) images of patients. METHODS Images of the same women were acquired on both a DM system (Mammomat Novation, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) and a BT prototype system adapted from the same type of DM system. Using the geometrical properties of the two systems, simulated lesions were projected and added to each DM image as well as to each BT projection image prior to 3D reconstruction. The same beam quality and approximately the same total absorbed dose to the glandular tissue were used for each breast image acquisition on the two systems. A series of four-alternative forced choice human observer experiments was conducted for each of five simulated lesion diameters: 0.2, 1, 3, 8, and 25 mm. An additional experiment was conducted for the 0.2 mm lesion in BT only at twice the dose level (BT2x). Threshold signal was defined as the lesion signal intensity required for a detectability index (d') of 2.5. Four medical physicists participated in all experiments. One experiment, consisting of 60 cases, was conducted per test condition (i.e., lesion size and signal combination). RESULTS For the smallest lesions (0.2 mm), the threshold signal for DM was 21% lower than for BT at equivalent dose levels, and BT2x was 26% lower than DM. For the lesions larger than 1 mm, the threshold signal increased linearly (in log space) with the lesion diameter for both DM and BT, with DM requiring around twice the signal as BT. The difference in the threshold signal between BT and DM at each lesion size was statistically significant, except for the 0.2 mm lesion between BT2x and DM. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that low-signal lesions larger than 1.0 mm may be more visible in BT compared to DM, whereas 0.2 mm lesions may be better visualized with DM compared to BT, when compared at equal dose.

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

[2]  B. Efron.  The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans , 1987 .

[3]  Arthur E Burgess,et al.  Signal detection in power-law noise: effect of spectrum exponents. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

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

[5]  Bo Zhao,et al.  Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system. , 2008, Medical physics.

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

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

[8]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Analyzing the effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions using mathematical observer models , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[9]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  A new approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

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

[12]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  John M. Boone,et al.  Evaluation of scatter effects on image quality for breast tomosynthesis , 2009 .

[14]  Ingvar Andersson,et al.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials , 2002, The Lancet.

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

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

[17]  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.

[18]  Walter Huda,et al.  How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography? , 2006, Academic radiology.

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

[20]  M Ruschin,et al.  Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  S. Glick,et al.  Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2009, Medical physics.

[22]  Ingrid Reiser,et al.  Comparison of power spectra for tomosynthesis projections and reconstructed images. , 2009, Medical physics.

[23]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[24]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  Günter Lauritsch,et al.  Theoretical framework for filtered back projection in tomosynthesis , 1998, Medical Imaging.

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

[27]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[28]  J. Boone,et al.  Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results. , 2000, Medical physics.

[29]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Improved in-plane visibility of tumors using breast tomosynthesis , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[30]  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.

[31]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Impact of dose on observer performance in breast tomosynthesis using breast specimens , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

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

[34]  J. Dobbins.  Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads. , 2009, Medical physics.

[35]  Aruna A. Vedula,et al.  A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. , 2006, Medical physics.