Impact of Clinical Display Device on Detectability of Breast Masses in 2D Digital Mammography: A Virtual Clinical Study

Rashidnasab, Alaleh; Bemelmans, Frédéric; Marshall, Nicholas; Kimpe, Tom; Bosmans, Hilde

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41546-8_84

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of previous studies have used this approach to compare and evaluate breast imaging modalities. For example, prior work investigated the effect of lesion location, lesion size and beam quality on lesion detection performance (Huda et al 2003(Huda et al , 2004(Huda et al , 2006; the effect of quantum and anatomical noise on microcalcification detection (Lai et al 2010); comparison of various reconstruction techniques (Miéville et al 2013) and different medical displays (Rashidnasab et al 2016); and quantified lesion and micro-calcification detectability in 2D and DBT simulated (Hadjipanteli et al 2016) and hybrid images (Timberg et al 2012), the latter using simulated lesions inserted into clinical images. In this work, we use the 4AFC paradigm to compare the lesion detectability in 2D-mammography and DBT systems using 4AFC tasks that are representative of realworld clinical situations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lesion detectability in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using different targets and observers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work investigates the detection performance of specialist and non-specialist observers for different targets in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) using the OPTIMAM virtual clinical trials (VCT) Toolbox and a 4-alternative forced choice (4AFC) assessment paradigm. Using 2D-mammography and DBT images of virtual breast phantoms, we compare the detection limits of simple uniform spherical targets and irregular solid masses. Target diameters of 4 mm and 6 mm have been chosen to represent target sizes close to the minimum detectable size found in breast screening, across a range of controlled contrast levels. The images were viewed by a set of specialist observers (five medical physicists and six experienced clinical readers) and five non-specialists. Combined results from both observer groups indicate that DBT has a significantly lower detectable threshold contrast than 2D-mammography for small masses (4 mm: 2.1% [DBT] versus 6.9% [2D]; 6 mm: 0.7% [DBT] versus 3.9% [2D]) and spheres (4 mm: 2.9% [DBT] versus 5.3% [2D]; 6 mm: 0.3% [DBT] versus 2.2% [2D]) (p < 0.0001). Both observer groups found spheres significantly easier to detect than irregular solid masses for both sizes and modalities (p < 0.0001) (except 4 mm DBT). The detection performances of specialist and non-specialist observers were generally found to be comparable, where each group marginally outperformed the other in particular detection tasks. Within the specialist group, the clinical readers performed better than the medical physicists with irregular masses (p < 0.0001). The results indicate that using spherical targets in such studies may produce over-optimistic detection thresholds compared to more complex masses, and that the superiority of DBT for detecting masses over 2D-mammography has been quantified. The results also suggest specialist observers may be supplemented by non-specialist observers (with training) in some types of 4AFC studies.

show abstract