Comparison of synthetic 2D images with planar and tomosynthesis imaging of the breast using a virtual clinical trial

Mackenzie, Alistair; Kaur, Sukhmanjit; Elangovan, Premkumar; Dance, David R.; Young, KC

doi:10.1117/12.2293070

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is commonly assumed that DM is superior to DBT in the characterization of microcalcifications. However, recent studies have shown that the perceptibility of microcalcifications is also adequate for DBT in combination with SM (21,22). Several factors influence image quality of both DBT, including SM, and DM, such as filter/anode combinations, spatial resolution, the angular range of the x-ray tube and radiation dose (21,23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial

Hofvind

Holen

Aase

et al. 2019

The Lancet Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial

Hofvind

Holen

Aase

et al. 2019

The Lancet Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar reader scores for the mass detection task were observed between FFDM and SM, a finding that was in agreement with other studies. For example, Mackenzie et al 36 conducted a virtual clinical trial that showed similar mass detection performance with SM and FFDM. Although there are many variations of SM algorithms implemented by different vendors, clinical studies also seem to suggest similar performance of SM and FFDM for the detection and diagnosis of mass lesions 4,37,38 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of task‐based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a limited‐angle tomographic breast imaging modality that can be used for breast cancer screening in conjunction with full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) or synthetic mammography (SM). Currently, there are five commercial DBT systems that have been approved by the U.S. FDA for breast cancer screening, all varying greatly in design and imaging protocol. Because the systems are different in technical specifications, there is a need for a quantitative approach for assessing them. In this study, the DBT systems are assessed using a novel methodology with an inkjet‐printed anthropomorphic phantom and four alternative forced choice (4AFC) study scheme. Method A breast phantom was fabricated using inkjet printing and parchment paper. The phantom contained 5‐mm spiculated masses fabricated with potassium iodide (KI)‐doped ink and microcalcifications (MCs) made with calcium hydroxyapatite. Images of the phantom were acquired on all five systems with DBT, FFDM, and SM modalities where available using beam settings under automatic exposure control. A 4AFC study was conducted to assess reader performance with each signal under each modality. Statistical analysis was performed on the data to determine proportion correct (PC), standard deviations, and levels of significance. Results For masses, overall detection was highest with DBT. The difference in PC was statistically significant between DBT and SM for most systems. A relationship was observed between increasing PC and greater gantry span. For MCs, performance was highest with DBT and FFDM compared to SM. The difference between PC of DBT and PC of SM was statistically significant for all manufacturers. Conclusions This methodology represents a novel approach for evaluating systems. This study is the first of its kind to use an inkjet‐printed anthropomorphic phantom with realistic signals to assess performance of clinical DBT imaging systems.

show abstract

“…Elangovan et al [20] showed that observers needed over three times the signal contrast to correctly identify a mass in 2D-mammography compared with DBT (narrow angle). The work by Mackenzie et al [19] used similar methods to quantify the minimum detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and DBT for the Siemens Inspiration system (which has the wide-angle geometry used in this study). Their conclusions agree with our work in that DBT has a smaller detectable mass diameter than 2D-mammography.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, simulation methods are sensitive and useful for investigating the imaging technology. Observer studies with lesions inserted into physical phantoms (anthropomorphic or structured) [15,16] or fully simulated breast images [17][18][19][20] have yielded useful results, while image metrics such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), CNR/ASF (artefact spread function) [21][22][23] have also been used successfully.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of synthetic 2D images with planar and tomosynthesis imaging of the breast using a virtual clinical trial

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial

Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial

Assessment of task‐based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom

The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About