Two complementary model observers to evaluate reconstructions of simulated micro-calcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis

New imaging modalities need to be properly evaluated before being introduced in clinical practice. The gold standard is to perform clinical trials or dedicated clinical performance related observer experiments with experienced readers. Unfortunately this is not feasible during development or optimization of new reconstruction algorithms due to their many degrees of freedom. Our goal is to design a set of model observers to evaluate the performance of newly developed reconstruction methods on the assessment of micro-calcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis. In order to do so, the model observers need to evaluate both detection and classification of micro-calcifications. A channelized Hotelling observer was created for the detection task and a Hotelling observer working on an extracted feature vector was implemented for the classification task. These observers were evaluated on their ability to predict the results of human observers. Results from a previous observer study were used as reference to compare performance between human and model observers. This study evaluated detection of small micro-calcifications (100 { 200 _m) by a free search task in a power law filtered noise background and classification of two types of larger micro-calcifications (200 {600 _m) in the same background. Scores from the free search study were evaluated using the weighted JAFROC method and the classification scores were analyzed using the DBM MRMC method. The same analysis methods were applied to the model observer scores. Results of the detection model observer were related linearly with the human observer results with a correlation coefficient of 0.962. The correlation coefficient for the classification task was 0.959 with a power law non-linear regression.

[1]  Olli Nevalainen,et al.  Algorithmic 3D simulation of breast calcifications for digital mammography , 2001, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[2]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[3]  John M Boone,et al.  Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images. , 2008, Medical physics.

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

[5]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

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

[7]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  A Novel Approach for Filtered Backprojection in Tomosynthesis Based on Filter Kernels Determined by Iterative Reconstruction Techniques , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[8]  Koen Michielsen,et al.  Patchwork reconstruction with resolution modeling for digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2013, Medical physics.

[9]  L Bocchi,et al.  Shape analysis of microcalcifications using Radon transform. , 2007, Medical engineering & physics.

[10]  Ewout Vansteenkiste,et al.  Channelized Hotelling observers for the assessment of volumetric imaging data sets. , 2011, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[11]  T M Svahn,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.