Top

Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine

Published in:

01-02-2011

Contrast Detail Phantom Comparison on a Commercially Available Unit. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) versus Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)

Authors: Marco Bertolini, Andrea Nitrosi, Giovanni Borasi, Andrea Botti, Davide Tassoni, Roberto Sghedoni, Giulio Zuccoli

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 1/2011

Abstract

The performance of a commercial digital mammographic system working in 2D planar versus tomosynthesis mode was evaluated in terms of the image signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR). A contrast detail phantom was obtained embedding 1 cm Plexiglas, including 49 holes of different diameter and depth, between two layers containing a breast-simulating material. The phantom was exposed with the details plane perpendicular to the X-ray beam using the manufacturer’s standard clinical breast acquisition parameters. SDNR in the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images was higher than that of the full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for 38 out of 49 details in complex background conditions. These differences (p < 0.05) are statistically significant for 19 details out of 38. The relative SDNR results for DBT and FFDM images showed a dependence on the diameter of the details considered. This paper proposes an initial framework for a global image quality evaluation for commercial systems that can operate with different image acquisition modality using the same detector.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration: MQSA National Statistics Archive. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/archives/0108

Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG, Jong RA: Technical developments in mammography. Health Phys 95:599–611, 2008CrossRefPubMed

Nitrosi A, Borasi G, Nicoli F, Modigliani G, Botti A, Bertolini M, Notari P: A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digit Imaging 20:140–148, 2007CrossRefPubMed

Saunders Jr, RS, Samei E, Jesneck JL, Lo JY: Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. Med Phys 32:588–599, 2005CrossRefPubMed

Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, Albagli D, Han S, Tkaczyk EJ, Landberg CE, Opsahl-Ong B, Granfors PR, Levis I, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE: Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys 27:558–567, 2000CrossRefPubMed

Ghetti C, Borrini A, Ortenzia O, Rossi R, Ordóñez PL: Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors. Med Phys 35:456–462, 2008CrossRefPubMed

Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S: Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 533:560–570, 2004

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783, 2005CrossRefPubMed

Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A: Randomized trial of screenfilm versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo, II study. Radiology 244:708–717, 2007CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ruschin M, Timberg P, Båth M, Hemdal B, Svahn T, Saunders RS, Samei E, Andersson I, Mattsson S, Chakrabort DP, Tingber AM: Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. Med Phys 34:400–407, 2007CrossRefPubMed

11.

Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437, 2001CrossRefPubMed

12.

Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, Landberg CE, Slanetz PJ, Giardino AA, Moore R, Albagli D, DeJule MC, Fitzgerald PF, Fobare DF, Giambattista BW, Kwasnick RF, Liu J, Lubowski SJ, Possin GE, Richotte JF, Wei CY, Wirth RF: Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406, 1997PubMed

13.

Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, McCauley T, Phillips W, Kopans DB, Moore RH, Eberhard JW, Opsahl-Ong B, Niklason L, Williams MB: Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 30:365–380, 2003CrossRefPubMed

14.

Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, Kopans DB: A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636–2647, 2004CrossRefPubMed

15.

Wu T, Moore RH, Kopans DB: Voting strategy for artifact reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:2461–2471, 2006CrossRefPubMed

16.

Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, Tingberg A: Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825, 2008CrossRefPubMed

17.

Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Glick SJ, D’Orsi CJ, Baker SP, Webber RL: Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. Acad Radiol 7:1085–1097, 2000CrossRefPubMed

18.

Diekmann F, Meyer H, Diekmann S, Puong S, Muller S, Bick U, and Rogalla P. Thick slices from tomosynthesis data sets: phantom study for the evaluation of different algorithms. J Digit Imaging 22:519–526, 2009

19.

Diekmann F, Bick U: Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol 17:3086–3092, 2007CrossRefPubMed

20.

Zhang Y, Chan HP, Sahiner B, Wei J, Goodsitt MM, Hadjiiski LM, Ge J, Zhou C: A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:3781–3795, 2006CrossRefPubMed

21.

Rakowski JT, Dennis MJ: A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for C-arm mammography tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:3018–3032, 2006CrossRefPubMed

22.

American College of Radiology. <http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/BIRADSAtlas/BIRADSAtlasexcerptedtext/BIRADSMammographyFourthEdition/GuidanceChapterDoc6.aspx>

23.

European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer screening and Diagnosis, 4th edition. Luxembourg: CEC, 2006

24.

Park JM, Franken Jr, EA, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT: Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. RadioGraphics 27:S231–S240, 2007CrossRefPubMed

25.

Saunders Jr, RS, Samei E: The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys 35:4464–4473, 2008CrossRefPubMed

26.

Chida K, Komatsu Y, Sai M, Nakagami A, Yamada T, Yamashita T, Mori I, Ishibashi T, Maruoka S, Zuguchi M: Reduced compression mammography to reduce breast pain. Clin Imaging 33:7–10, 2009CrossRefPubMed

27.

Toroi P, Zanca F, Young KC, van Ongeval C, Marchal G, Bosmans H: Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur Radiol 17:2368–2375, 2007CrossRefPubMed

28.

Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Ferrari P, Tassoni D: On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med Phys 30:1719–1731, 2003CrossRefPubMed

29.

Borasi G, Samei E, Bertolini M, Nitrosi A, Tassoni D: Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med Phys 33:1707–1719, 2006CrossRef

30.

Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Campanini R, Bertolini M, Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Danielli C, Angelini L, Maggi S: Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. Med Phys 33:4198–4209, 2006CrossRefPubMed

31.

Samei E, Dobbins III, JT, Lo JY, Tornai MP: A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital x-ray imaging. Radiat Prot Dosim 114:220–229, 2005CrossRef

32.

Tapiovaara MJ, Wagner RF: SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: I. A practical approach based on statistical decision theory. Phys Med Biol 38:71–92, 1993CrossRefPubMed

33.

Siegel S: Nonparametric Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956

Title: Contrast Detail Phantom Comparison on a Commercially Available Unit. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) versus Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)
Authors: Marco Bertolini
Andrea Nitrosi
Giovanni Borasi
Andrea Botti
Davide Tassoni
Roberto Sghedoni
Giulio Zuccoli
Publication date: 01-02-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9270-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Contrast Detail Phantom Comparison on a Commercially Available Unit. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) versus Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Evaluation of Objective Similarity Measures for Selecting Similar Images of Mammographic Lesions

Automatic Lung Segmentation in CT Images with Accurate Handling of the Hilar Region

Computer-Aided Detection of Intracranial Aneurysms in MR Angiography

Automatic Extraction of Concepts to Extend RadLex

Imaging Informatics: Challenges in Multi-site Imaging Trials

Alternative User Interface Devices for Improved Navigation of CT Datasets