A phantom study comparing technical image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems.

BACKGROUND Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a three-dimensional breast imaging method. DBT vendors employ various approaches in both image acquisition and data processing, which may affect image quality and radiation exposure to patients. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the performance of five DBT systems: Fujifilm Amulet Innovality (using both a standard mode and high-resolution mode), GE Senographe Essential, Hologic Selenia Dimensions, Planmed Clarity 3D, and Siemens Mammomat Inspiration. MATERIALS AND METHODS The performance of each device and imaging technique was evaluated and compared by phantom measurements performed with four quality assurance phantoms. Technical image quality assessments consisted of measuring artefact extent, in-plane resolution, relative noise power spectrum, and geometric accuracy. RESULTS Artefact spreading varied remarkably between the devices, and the full width at half maximum values of artefact spread functions varied from 3.5 mm to 10.7 mm. Noticeable in-plane resolution anisotropy, determined using modulation transfer function (MTF) analysis, was typically observed between tube travel direction and chest wall-nipple direction. The MTF50 varied from 1.1 mm-1 to 1.6 mm-1 and from 1.5 mm-1 to 4.1 mm-1 in the tube travel and chest wall-nipple directions, respectively. Moreover, distinctly different noise power spectra were observed between the systems. The geometric accuracy in every system was within 0.5%. CONCLUSION Technical image quality assessments with image quality phantoms revealed remarkable differences in artefact spread, in-plane resolution, and noise properties between the DBT systems and imaging methods.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  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.

[4]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[5]  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.

[6]  Tracy Onega,et al.  Diffusion of digital breast tomosynthesis among women in primary care: associations with insurance type , 2017, Cancer medicine.

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

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

[9]  C P Lawinski,et al.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2012, Clinical radiology.

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

[11]  Tor D Tosteson,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Manuela Durando,et al.  Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study , 2014, European Radiology.

[13]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. , 2013, Radiology.

[14]  Sara Gavenonis,et al.  Calcifications in the Breast and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2011, The breast journal.

[15]  Aili Bloomquist,et al.  Dependence of image quality on geometric factors in breast tomosynthesis. , 2011, Medical physics.

[16]  Lorraine Tucker,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. , 2016, Clinical radiology.

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

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

[19]  Fiona J Gilbert,et al.  Development and experience of quality control methods for digital breast tomosynthesis systems. , 2015, The British journal of radiology.

[20]  David Gur,et al.  Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study , 2015, European Radiology.

[22]  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.