Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE This work characterizes three candidate mammography phantoms with structured background in terms of power law analysis in the low frequency region of the power spectrum for 2D (planar) mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). METHODS The study was performed using three phantoms (spheres in water, Voxmam, and BR3D CIRS phantoms) on two DBT systems from two different vendors (Siemens Inspiration and Hologic Selenia Dimensions). Power spectra (PS) were calculated for planar projection, DBT projection, and reconstructed images and curve fitted in the low frequency region from 0.2 to 0.7 mm(-1) with a power law function characterized by an exponent β and magnitude κ. The influence of acquisition dose and tube voltage on the power law parameters was first explored. Then power law parameters were calculated from images acquired with the same anode∕filter combination and tube voltage for the three test objects, and compared with each other. Finally, PS curves for automatic exposure controlled acquisitions (anode∕filter combination and tube voltages selected by the systems based on the breast equivalent thickness of the test objects) were compared against PS analysis performed on patient data (for Siemens 80 and for Hologic 48 mammograms and DBT series). Dosimetric aspects of the three test objects were also examined. RESULTS The power law exponent (β) was found to be independent of acquisition dose for planar mammography but varied more for DBT projections of the sphere-phantom. Systematic increase of tube voltage did not affect β but decreased κ, both in planar and DBT projection phantom images. Power spectra of the BR3D phantom were closer to those of the patients than these of the Voxmam phantom; the Voxmam phantom gave high values of κ compared to the other phantoms and the patient series. The magnitude of the PS curves of the BR3D phantom was within the patient range but β was lower than the average patient value. Finally, PS magnitude for the sphere-phantom coincided with the patient curves for Siemens but was lower for the Hologic system. Close agreement of doses for all three phantoms with patient doses was found. CONCLUSIONS Power law parameters of the phantoms were close to those of the patients but no single phantom matched in terms of both magnitude (κ) and texture (β) for the x-ray systems in this work. PS analysis of structured phantoms is feasible and this methodology can be used to suggest improvements in phantom design.

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

[2]  Jeffrey H Siewerdsen,et al.  Cascaded systems analysis of the 3D noise transfer characteristics of flat-panel cone-beam CT. , 2008, Medical physics.

[3]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. II. Evaluation of synthetic mammogram texture. , 2002, Medical physics.

[4]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An anthropomorphic breast model for breast imaging simulation and optimization. , 2011, Academic radiology.

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

[6]  Ingrid Reiser,et al.  A statistically defined anthropomorphic software breast phantom. , 2012, Medical physics.

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

[8]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Optimized generation of high resolution breast anthropomorphic software phantoms. , 2012, Medical physics.

[9]  John M Boone,et al.  Methodology for generating a 3D computerized breast phantom from empirical data. , 2009, Medical physics.

[10]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Development of an anthropomorphic breast software phantom based on region growing algorithm , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

[12]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. I. Breast tissue model and image acquisition simulation. , 2002, Medical physics.

[13]  Erik Fredenberg,et al.  Optimization of mammography with respect to anatomical noise , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[14]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Design and Evaluation of a Phantom with Structured Background for Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis , 2012, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

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

[16]  Aldo Badano,et al.  A statistical, task-based evaluation method for three-dimensional x-ray breast imaging systems using variable-background phantoms. , 2010, Medical physics.

[17]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  NPS comparison of anatomical noise characteristics in mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast CT images using power law metrics , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[18]  Joep J. M. Kierkels,et al.  Power-Law, Beta, and (Slight) Chaos in Automated Mammography Breast Structure Characterization , 2012, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[19]  Mini Das,et al.  Development of an Ensemble of Digital Breast Object Models , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[20]  Dragana Brzakovic,et al.  Mammogram synthesis using a three-dimensional simulation. III. Modeling and evaluation of the breast ductal network. , 2003, Medical physics.

[21]  R M Nishikawa,et al.  On the orientation of mammographic structure. , 2011, Medical physics.

[22]  Spencer Gunn,et al.  Introducing DeBRa: a detailed breast model for radiological studies. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  Gregory M. Sturgeon,et al.  Development of matched virtual and physical breast phantoms based on patient data , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[24]  Jeffrey H Siewerdsen,et al.  Noise aliasing and the 3D NEQ of flat-panel cone-beam CT: effect of 2D/3D apertures and sampling. , 2009, Medical physics.

[25]  J. Rowlands,et al.  The physics of computed radiography. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  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.

[27]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Three-dimensional linear system analysis for breast tomosynthesis. , 2008, Medical physics.

[28]  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.

[29]  Bo Zhao,et al.  A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. , 2007, Medical physics.

[30]  F. Harris.  On the use of windows for harmonic analysis with the discrete Fourier transform , 1978, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[31]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Breast Structural Noise in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Its Dependence on Reconstruction Methods , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[32]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Issues in characterizing anatomic structure in digital breast tomosynthesis , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[33]  Bo Zhao,et al.  Optimization of detector operation and imaging geometry for breast tomosynthesis , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

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

[36]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Scaling-law for the energy dependence of anatomic power spectrum in dedicated breast CT. , 2013, Medical physics.

[37]  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.

[38]  H. Blume,et al.  DQE(f) of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices. , 1995, Medical physics.

[39]  N W Marshall,et al.  A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[40]  K Bliznakova,et al.  A three-dimensional breast software phantom for mammography simulation. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[41]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  A Directional Small-Scale Tissue Model for an Anthropomorphic Breast Phantom , 2012, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[42]  John J Heine,et al.  Spectral analysis of full field digital mammography data. , 2002, Medical physics.

[43]  Kristina Bliznakova,et al.  An Optimised 3D Breast Phantom for X-Ray Breast Imaging Techniques , 2009 .

[44]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Comparison of Breast Doses for Digital Tomosynthesis Estimated from Patient Exposures and Using PMMA Breast Phantoms , 2012, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[45]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Development of a physical 3D anthropomorphic breast phantom. , 2011, Medical physics.

[46]  D. Dance,et al.  Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[47]  P. C. Johns,et al.  X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.

[48]  P Baldelli,et al.  Comprehensive dose survey of breast screening in Ireland. , 2011, Radiation protection dosimetry.