Variation in digital breast tomosynthesis image quality at differing heights above the detector

Rob Davidson 1, Khaled Al Khalifah 1 2, Abel Zhou 1


 

Affiliations

01 June 2022

-

doi: 10.1002/jmrs.565

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this preliminary work was to determine if image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) changes when tomosynthesis image slices were obtained at differing heights above the detector and in differing breast thicknesses.

Methods: A CIRS Model 020 BR3D breast imaging phantom was used to obtain the DBT images. The images were also acquired at different tube voltages, and each exposure was determined by the automatic exposure control system. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure-of-merit (FOM) values were obtained and compared.

Results: At a phantom thickness of 5 cm or greater, there was a significant reduction (P ≤ 0.05) of image CNR values obtained from the images near the top of the phantom to those obtained near the bottom of the phantom. When the phantom thickness was 4 cm, there was no significant difference in CNR values between DBT images acquired at any height in the phantom. FOM values generally showed no difference when images were obtained at differing heights above the detector.

Conclusion: Image quality, as measured by the CNR, was reduced when tomosynthesis slice image heights were at the top of the phantom and when the thickness of the phantom was more than 4 cm. From this preliminary work, clinicians need to be aware that DBT images obtained near the top of the breast, when breast thickness is greater than 4 cm, may have reduced image quality. Further work is needed to fully assess any DBT image quality changes when images are obtained near the top of the breast.

Keywords: Breast phantom; breast tomosynthesis; contrast-to-noise ratio; figure-of-merit; image quality.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1.  
    1. Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48: 917–29. - PMC - PubMed
  2.  
    1. Korhonen KE, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF. Strategies to increase cancer detection: review of true‐positive and false‐negative results at digital breast tomosynthesis screening. Radiographics 2016; 36: 1954–65. - PMC - PubMed
  3.  
    1. Peppard HR, Nicholson BE, Rochman CM, Merchant JK, Mayo RC, Harvey JA. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: indications and clinical applications. Radiographics 2015; 35: 975–90. - PubMed
  4.  
    1. Roth RG, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, Roth SO, Conant EF. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Lessons learned from early clinical implementation. Radiographics 2014; 34: E89–E102. - PMC - PubMed
  5.  
    1. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two‐dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014; 271: 664–71. - PMC - PubMed
  6.  
    1. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2016; 2: 737–43. - PubMed
  7.  
    1. Pan H‐B, Wong K‐F, Yao A, et al. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis ‐ 4 year experience and comparison with national data. J Chin Med Assoc 2018; 81: 70–80. - PubMed
  8.  
    1. Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X, et al. Early Clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 2015; 274: 85–92. - PubMed
  9.  
    1. El Bakry RAR. Breast tomosynthesis: A diagnostic addition to screening digital mammography. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2018; 49: 529–35.
  10.  
    1. Lång K, Nergården M, Andersson I, Rosso A, Zackrisson S. False positives in breast cancer screening with one‐view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work‐up and biopsy rates in the Malmö breast tomosynthesis screening trial. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 3899–907. - PMC - PubMed
  11.  
    1. Smith A. Fundamentals of Breast Tomosynthesis: Improving the Performance of Mammography. [White paper]. In press 2008.
  12.  
    1. Bissonnette M, Hansroul M, Masson E, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector: SPIE; 2005.
  13.  
    1. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys 2013; 40: 14301. - PMC - PubMed
  14.  
    1. Nosratieh A, Yang K, Aminololama‐Shakeri S, Boone JM. Comprehensive assessment of the slice sensitivity profiles in breast tomosynthesis and breast CT. Med Phys 2012; 39: 7254–61. - PMC - PubMed
  15.  
    1. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 586–91. - PubMed
  16.  
    1. Jousi MO, Erkkilä J, Varjonen M, Soiva M, Hukkinen K, Blanco Sequeiros R. A new breast tomosynthesis imaging method: Continuous Sync‐and‐Shoot ‐ technical feasibility and initial experience. Acta Radiologica Open 2019; 8: 205846011983625. - PMC - PubMed
  17.  
    1. Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T, Hoheisel M. X‐ray spectrum optimization of full‐field digital mammography: Simulation and phantom study. Med Phys 2006; 33: 4337–49. - PubMed
  18.  
    1. Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson GA. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal‐to‐noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 1056–67. - PubMed
  19.  
    1. 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 2007; 17: 2368–75. - PubMed
  20.  
    1. Williams MB, Raghunathan P, More MJ, et al. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography. Med Phys 2008; 35: 2414–23. - PMC - PubMed
  21.  
    1. Tomal A, Cunha DM, Poletti ME. Optimal X‐Ray spectra selection in digital mammography: A semi‐analytical study. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2013; 60: 728–34.
  22.  
    1. Hu Y‐H, Zhao B, Zhao W. Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: Investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach. Med Phys 2008; 35: 5242–52. - PMC - PubMed
  23.  
    1. Zheng J, Fessler JA, Chan H‐P. Effect of source blur on digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction. Med Phys 2019; 46: 5572–92. - PMC - PubMed
  24.  
    1. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi CJ, Karellas A. Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 2007; 34: 564–76. - PMC - PubMed
  25.  
    1. Wu G, Mainprize JG, Boone JM, Yaffe MJ. Evaluation of scatter effects on image quality for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2009; 36: 4425–32. - PMC - PubMed
  26.  
    1. Rodrigues MJ, Di Maria S, Baptista M, et al. Influence of X‐ray scatter radiation on image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Radiat Phys Chem 2017; 140: 300–4.
  27.  
    1. Cockmartin L, Marshall NW, Van Ongeval C, et al. Comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography using a hybrid performance test. Phys Med Biol 2015; 60: 3939–58. - PubMed
  28.  
    1. Shaheen E, Marshall N, Bosmans H. The influence of position within the breast on microcalcification detectability in continuous tube motion digital breast tomosynthesis. Proc SPIE 8668, Medical Imaging 2013: Physics of Medical Imaging. 2013.
  29.  
    1. Ferguson M. Personal Communication. 24 June 2019.
  30.  
    1. BreastScreen Australia . BreastScreen Australia National Accreditation Standards. 2019.
  31.  
    1. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists . Guidelines for Quality Control Testing for Digital (CR & DR) Mammography. 2018.
  32.  
    1. Sage J, Fezzani KL, Fitton I, et al. Experimental evaluation of seven quality control phantoms for digital breast tomosynthesis. Physica Med 2019; 57: 137–44. - PubMed
  33.  
    1. Puett C, Inscoe C, Lee YZ, Zhou O, Lu J. Phantom‐based study exploring the effects of different scatter correction approaches on the reconstructed images generated by contrast‐enhanced stationary digital breast tomosynthesis. J Med Imaging 2018; 5: 13502. - PMC - PubMed
  34.  
    1. Goodsitt MM, Chan H‐P, Schmitz A, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: studies of the effects of acquisition geometry on contrast‐to‐noise ratio and observer preference of low‐contrast objects in breast phantom images. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59: 5883–902. - PMC - PubMed
  35.  
    1. Aminah M, Ng KH, Abdullah BJJ, Jamal N. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast‐to‐noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2010; 33: 329–34. - PubMed
  36.  
    1. Xinming L, Lai C‐J, Whitman GJ, et al. Effects of exposure equalization on image signaltonoise ratios in digital mammography A simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Med Phys 2011; 38: 6489–501. - PMC - PubMed
  37.  
    1. Borg M, Badr I, Royle G. The use of a figure‐of‐merit (FOM) for optimisation in digital mammography: A literature review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2012; 151: 81–8. - PubMed
  38.  
    1. Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Evaluating the figure of merit in mammography utilizing monte carlo simulation. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect A 2007; 580: 493–6.
  39.  
    1. Bushberg J, Seibert J, Leidholdt E, Boone J. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2011.
  40.  
    1. Bushong S. Radiologic Science for Technologists: Physics, Biology and Protection, 11th edn. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 2016.

Page Navigation