Technical Note: Robust measurement of the slice-sensitivity profile in breast tomosynthesis

Maki, Aili K.; Mainprize, James G.; Yaffe, Martin J.

doi:10.1118/1.4959539

Cited by 7 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The FWHM is used to quantify the width of the profile ( van Engen et al 2018). The influence of the geometry and reconstruction coordinate system on the ASF is examined in the study of Maki et al (2016). Two approaches are generally adopted by the vendors.…”

Section: Artefact Spread and Resolution In The Z-directionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis systems: physical methods and experimental data

Marshall¹,

Bosmans²

2022

Phys. Med. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has become a well-established breast imaging technique, whose performance has been investigated in many clinical studies, including a number of prospective clinical trials. Results from these studies generally point to non-inferiority in terms of microcalcification detection and superior mass-lesion detection for DBT imaging compared to digital mammography (DM). This modality has become an essential tool in the clinic for assessment and ad-hoc screening but is not yet implemented in most breast screening programmes at a state or national level. While evidence on the clinical utility of DBT has been accumulating, there has also been progress in the development of methods for technical performance assessment and quality control of these imaging systems. DBT is a relatively complicated “pseudo-3D” modality whose technical assessment poses a number of difficulties. This paper reviews methods for the technical performance assessment of DBT devices, starting at the component level in part one and leading up to discussion of system evaluation with physical test objects in part two. We provide some historical and basic theoretical perspective, often starting from methods developed for DM imaging. Data from a multi-vendor comparison are also included, acquired under the medical physics QC protocol developed by EUREF and currently being consolidated by a European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics (EFOMP) working group. These data and associated methods can serve as a reference for the development of reference data and provide some context for clinical studies.

show abstract

Section: Artefact Spread and Resolution In The Z-directionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis systems: physical methods and experimental data

Marshall¹,

Bosmans²

2022

Phys. Med. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the viewing benefits of conical‐grid reconstruction volumes (no relative movement of objects between slices), the small variation in MTF( x ) across the volume means that shift‐variance is close to negligible in this direction and thus MTF measurements should generally be more robust in a conical reconstruction grid than in a Cartesian reconstruction grid, that is, one can expect a simplified analysis and measurements being less sensitive to position and ROI size. Similarly, it has previously been found that measurements of height resolution in a conical reconstruction grid are more robust than measurements in a Cartesian reconstruction grid . This robustness does, however, not apply for the y direction, which exhibits a large variation in MTF across the volume.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The system uses a conical reconstruction grid, that is, a voxel grid that is aligned to the rays of the central projection. For flat‐panel systems, the corresponding grid is also known as a cone‐beam coordinate system . The conical reconstruction grid results in a voxel size that varies throughout the volume, shown in the top of Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For flat-panel systems, the corresponding grid is also known as a cone-beam coordinate system. 20 The conical reconstruction grid results in a voxel size that varies throughout the volume, shown in the top of Fig. 1, in such a way that magnification effects are cancelled out when scrolling through slices.…”

Section: B Geometry and Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, it has previously been found that measurements of height resolution in a conical reconstruction grid are more robust than measurements in a Cartesian reconstruction grid. 20 This robustness does, however, not apply for the y direction, which exhibits a large variation in MTF across the volume.…”

Section: B Image Quality Variation In Volumementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cascaded systems analysis of shift‐variant image quality in slit‐scanning breast tomosynthesis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A shift-variant cascaded systems model has been developed for slit-scanning tomosynthesis using simple back-projection. The model was successfully validated against measurements. Even though the study was performed on a slit-scanning system, several parts of the framework can be applied and extended to other tomosynthesis geometries. The conical reconstruction grid has low variation in image quality in the scan direction where the 3D information is acquired, but source and geometric magnification still dominate in the slit direction, causing a larger variation in image quality. We conclude that image quality is close to shift-invariant in the scan direction, but not in the height and chest-mammilla directions, and we recommend that small measurement volumes are used when measuring image quality in these directions to minimize the effects of shift variance.

show abstract

Quality control for digital tomosynthesis in the ECOG‐ACRIN EA1151 TMIST trial

Maki,

Mawdsley,

Mainprize

et al. 2023

Medical Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST), EA1151 conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)/American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) is a randomized clinical trial designed to assess the effectiveness for breast cancer screening of digital breast tomosynthesis (TM) compared to digital mammography (DM). Equipment from multiple vendors is being used in the study.PurposeFor the findings of the study to be valid and capture the true capacities of the two technology types, it is important that all equipment is operated within appropriate parameters with regard to image quality and dose. A harmonized QC program was established by a core physics team. Since there are over 120 trial sites, a centralized, automated QC program was chosen as the most practical design. This report presents results of the weekly QC testing program. A companion paper will review quality monitoring based on data from the headers of the patient images.MethodsStudy images are collected centrally after de‐identification using the “TRIAD” application developed by ACR. The core physics team devised and implemented a minimal set of quality control (QC) tests to evaluate the tomosynthesis and 2D mammography systems. Weekly, monthly and annual testing is performed by the site mammography technologists with images submitted directly to the physics core. The weekly physics QC tests are described: SDNR of a low‐contrast mass object, artifact spread, spatial resolution, tracking of technical factors, and in‐slice noise power spectra.ResultsAs of December 31, 2022 (5 years), 145 sites with 411 machines had submitted QC data. A total of 136 742 TMIST participant screening imaging studies had been performed. The 5th and 95th percentile mean glandular doses for a single tomosynthesis exposure to a 4.0 cm thick PMMA phantom (“standard breast phantom”) were 1.24 and 1.68 mGy respectively. The largest sources of QC non‐conformance were: operator error, not following the QC protocol exactly, unreported software updates and preventive maintenance activities that affected QC setpoints. Noise power spectra were measured, however, standardization of performance targets across machine types and software revisions was difficult. Nevertheless, for each machine type, test measurement results were very consistent when the protocol was followed. Deviations in test results were mostly related to software and hardware changes.ConclusionMost systems performed very consistently. Although this is a harmonized program using identical phantoms and testing protocols, it is not appropriate to apply universal threshold or target metrics across the machine types because the systems have different non‐linear reconstruction algorithms and image display filters. It was found to be more useful to assess pass/fail criteria in terms of relative deviations from baseline values established when a system is first characterized and after equipment is changed. Generally, systems which needed repair failed suddenly, but in retrospect, for a few cases, drops in SDNR and increases in mAs were observed prior to tube failure.TMIST is registered as NCT03233191 by Clinicaltrials.gov

show abstract

Technical Note: Robust measurement of the slice-sensitivity profile in breast tomosynthesis

Abstract: Measuring the SSP in the volumes in a CBCS improves the robustness of the measurement.

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Performance evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis systems: physical methods and experimental data

Performance evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis systems: physical methods and experimental data

Cascaded systems analysis of shift‐variant image quality in slit‐scanning breast tomosynthesis

Quality control for digital tomosynthesis in the ECOG‐ACRIN EA1151 TMIST trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About