Virtual clinical trial of lesion detection in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis

Bakić, Predrag R.; Barufaldi, Bruno; Higginbotham, David; Weinstein, Susan P.; Avanaki, Ali N.; Espig, Kathryn S.; Xthona, Albert; Kimpe, Tom; Maidment, Andrew D. A.

doi:10.1117/12.2294934

Cited by 40 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, our approach for VCT schemes allows the rapid estimation of scatter fields in less than 20 s with errors of 3% within most of the area of the synthetic ( P + S ) image. By contrast, we note that in certain VCT schemes, scattered radiation is sometimes ignored …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Simple method for computing scattered radiation in breast tomosynthesis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Virtual clinical trials (VCT) are a powerful imaging tool that can be used to investigate digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) technology. In this work, a fast and simple method is proposed to estimate the two-dimensional distribution of scattered radiation which is needed when simulating DBT geometries in VCTs. Methods: Monte Carlo simulations are used to precalculate scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) for a range of low-resolution homogeneous phantoms. The resulting values can be used to estimate the two-dimensional (2D) distribution of scattered radiation arising from inhomogeneous anthropomorphic phantoms used in VCTs. The method has been validated by comparing the values of the scatter thus obtained against the results of direct Monte Carlo simulation for three different types of inhomogeneous anthropomorphic phantoms. Results: Differences between the proposed scatter field estimation method and the ground truth data for the OPTIMAM phantom had an average modulus and standard deviation of over the projected breast area of 2.4 AE 0.9% (minimum À17.0%, maximum 27.7%). The corresponding values for the University of Pennsylvania and Duke University breast phantoms were 1.8 AE 0.1% (minimum À8.7%, maximum 8.0%) and 5.1 AE 0.1% (minimum À16.2%, maximum 7.4%), respectively. Conclusions: The proposed method, which has been validated using three of the most common breast models, is a useful tool for accurately estimating scattered radiation in VCT schemes used to study current designs of DBT system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Simple method for computing scattered radiation in breast tomosynthesis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Monte Carlo (MC) methods provide a gold‐standard approach to simulating noisy x‐ray projections. Recent works showed that a MC‐based method, as well as the single iteration x‐ray tracing used here, are capable of reproducing the outcome of real‐life DBT clinical trial using exclusively artificial data. However, even though both methods perform with an acceptable degree of realism, the computational time required by MC‐based methods is up to 65 times higher than required by the algorithm adopted here .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Note: Noise models for virtual clinical trials of digital breast tomosynthesis

Borges¹,

Barufaldi

Caron

et al. 2019

Medical Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate the use of an affine‐variance noise model, with correlated quantum noise and spatially dependent quantum gain, for the simulation of noise in virtual clinical trials (VCT) of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Methods Two distinct technologies were considered: an amorphous‐selenium (a‐Se) detector with direct conversion and a thallium‐doped cesium iodide (CsI(Tl)) detector with indirect conversion. A VCT framework was used to generate noise‐free projections of a uniform three‐dimensional simulated phantom, whose geometry and absorption match those of a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) uniform physical phantom. The noise model was then used to generate noisy observations from the simulated noise‐free data, while two clinically available DBT units were used to acquire projections of the PMMA physical phantom. Real and simulated projections were then compared using the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) and normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS). Results Simulated images reported errors smaller than 4.4% and 7.0% in terms of SNR and NNPS, respectively. These errors are within the expected variation between two clinical units of the same model. The errors increase to 65.8% if uncorrelated models are adopted for the simulation of systems featuring indirect detection. The assumption of spatially independent quantum gain generates errors of 11.2%. Conclusions The investigated noise model can be used to accurately reproduce the noise found in clinical DBT. The assumption of uncorrelated noise may be adopted if the system features a direct detector with minimal pixel crosstalk.

show abstract

“…One of the earliest applications of VCTs was in the area of breast imaging for investigations of image quality, dosimetry, optimization, and technology evaluation. 30,213,[278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288][289] Recent VCTs have attempted to predict the ranking and the magnitude of improvement of breast imaging technologies as seen by human observers. 26,278,[290][291][292] In one example, VCTs were used in the Optimam project to evaluate the smallest detectable diameter of various lesions, showing that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is superior to digital mammography (DM) for masses, 290 while the converse is true for calcifications.…”

Section: Breast Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compared the performance of DBT and DM with predicate premarket approval data for masses and calcifications based on differences in AUC. 26 In further work, Bakic et al 213 compared the performance of DBT and DM in the detection of calcifications and masses, simulating the Hologic Selenia Dimensions under clinically realistic conditions. The results of the VCT were compared with data reported by Rafferty et al 293 To compare differences in AUC, the VCT performance was calibrated to the predicted DM results; the DBT results were calculated for matching conditions.…”

Section: Breast Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accelerating complexity and variety of medical imaging devices and methods have outpaced the ability to evaluate and optimize their design and clinical use. This is a significant and increasing challenge for both scientific investigations and clinical applications. Evaluations would ideally be done using clinical imaging trials. These experiments, however, are often not practical due to ethical limitations, expense, time requirements, or lack of ground truth. Virtual clinical trials (VCTs) (also known as in silico imaging trials or virtual imaging trials) offer an alternative means to efficiently evaluate medical imaging technologies virtually. They do so by simulating the patients, imaging systems, and interpreters. The field of VCTs has been constantly advanced over the past decades in multiple areas. We summarize the major developments and current status of the field of VCTs in medical imaging. We review the core components of a VCT: computational phantoms, simulators of different imaging modalities, and interpretation models. We also highlight some of the applications of VCTs across various imaging modalities.

show abstract

Virtual clinical trial of lesion detection in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis

Cited by 40 publications

References 31 publications

Simple method for computing scattered radiation in breast tomosynthesis

Simple method for computing scattered radiation in breast tomosynthesis

Technical Note: Noise models for virtual clinical trials of digital breast tomosynthesis

Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About