Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has recently gained interest both for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Its employment has increased also in conjunction with digital mammography (DM), to improve cancer detection and reduce false positive recall rate. Synthetic mammograms (SMs) reconstructed from DBT data have been introduced to replace DM in the DBT + DM approach, for preserving the benefits of the dual-acquisition modality whilst reducing radiation dose and compression time. Therefore, different DBT models have been commercialized and the effective potential of each system has been investigated. In particular, wide-angle DBT was shown to provide better depth resolution than narrow-angle DBT, while narrow-angle DBT allows better identification of microcalcifications compared to wide-angle DBT. Given the increasing employment of SMs as supplement to DBT, a comparison of image quality between SMs obtained in narrow-angle and wide-angle DBT is of practical interest. Therefore, the aim of this phantom study was to evaluate and compare the image quality of SMs reconstructed from 15° (SM15) and 40° (SM40) DBT in a commercial system. Spatial resolution, noise and contrast properties were evaluated through the modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum, maps of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), image contrast, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and contrast-detail (CD) thresholds. SM40 expressed higher MTF than SM15, but also lower SNR and CNR levels. SM15 and SM40 were characterized by slight different texture, and a different behavior in terms of contrast was found. SM15 provided better CD performances than SM40. These results suggest that the employment of wide/narrow-angle DBT + SM images should be optimized based on the specific image task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening: viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372(24):2353–2358

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE (2017) Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(2):256–266

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2018) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia tomosynthesis randomized trial. Radiology 288(2):375–385

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2018) Protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of digital breast tomosynthesis systems. (EUREF)

  5. Badano A, Graff CG, Badal A et al (2018) Evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis as replacement of full-field digital mammography using an in silico imaging trial. JAMA Netw Open 1(7):e185474

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT et al (2019) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Oslo tomosynthesis screening trial. Radiology 291(1):23–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ab Mumin N, Rahmat K, Fadzli F et al (2019) Diagnostic efficacy of synthesized 2D digital breast tomosynthesis in multi-ethnic Malaysian population. Sci Rep 9:1459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cavicchioli R, Cheng HuJ, LoliPiccolomini E, Morotti E, Zanni L (2020) GPU acceleration of a model-based iterative method for digital breast tomosynthesis. Sci Rep 10:43

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sechopoulos I (2013a) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I: The image acquisition process. Med Phys 40(1):014301

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sechopoulos I (2013b) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II: Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys 40(1):014302

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277(3):663–684

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. RadiatProtDosim 139(1–3):113–117

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013a) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. EurRadiol 23:2061–2071

    Google Scholar 

  15. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013b) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shin SU, Chang JM, Bae MS et al (2014) Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density. EurRadiol 25(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  20. Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Houssami N (2018) Evidence on synthesized two-dimensional mammography versus digital mammography when using tomosynthesis (three-dimensional mammography) for population breast cancer screening. Clin Breast Cancer 18(4):255-260.e1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY, Ko ES, Hahn SY, Shin JH, Kim MJ (2016) Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. EurRadiol 26(8):2538–2546

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zuckerman SP, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF (2017) Imaging with synthesized 2D mammography differences, advantages, and pitfalls compared with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209(1):222–229

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Alshafeiy TI, Wadih A, Nicholson BT, Rochman CM, Peppard HR, Patrie JT, Harvey JA (2017) Comparison between digital and synthetic 2D mammograms in breast density interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209(1):W36–W41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ratanaprasatporn L, Chikarmane SA, Giess CS (2017) Strengths and weaknesses of synthetic mammography in screening. RadioGraphics 37(7):1913–1927

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Durand MA (2018) Synthesized mammography: clinical evidence, appearance, and implementation. Diagnostics 8(2):E22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith AH (2020) Synthesized 2D mammographic imaging theory and clinical performance. C-view white paper. http://www.lowdose3d.com. Accessed 7 Apr 2020

  28. van Schie G, Mann R, Imhof-Tas M, Karssemeijer N (2013) Generating synthetic mammograms from reconstructed tomosynthesis volumes. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32(12):2322–2331

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wei J, Chan HP, Helvie MA et al (2019) Synthesizing mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol 64(4):045011

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Nelson JS, Wells JR, Baker JA, Samei E (2016) How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? Med Phys 43(5):2538

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ikejimba LC, Glick SJ, Samei E, Lo JY (2016) Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms. Med Phys 43(10):5593

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Barca P, Lamastra R, Aringhieri G, Tucciariello RM, Traino A, Fantacci ME (2019) Comprehensive assessment of image quality in synthetic and digital mammography: a quantitative comparison. AustralasPhysEngSci Med 42(4):1141–1152

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271(3):664–671

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM et al (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281(3):730–736

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1105–1113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N (2017) Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories. Breast Cancer Res Treatm 166(3):765–773

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wahab RA, Lee SJ, Zhang B, Sobel L, Mahoney MC (2018) A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening. Eur J Radiol 107:14–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Murphy MC, Coffey L, O’Neill AC, Quinn C, Prichard R, McNally S (2018) Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set? Ir J Med Sci 187(4):1077–1081

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hadjipanteli A, Elangovan P, Mackenzie A, Wells K, Dance DR, Young KC (2019) The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med 57:25–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Murakami R, Uchiyama N, Tani H, Yoshida T, Kumita S (2020) Comparative analysis between synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for breast cancer detection and visibility. Eur J of Radiol Open 7:100207

    Google Scholar 

  41. Orsi MA, Cellina M, Rosti C, Gibelli D, Belloni E, Oliva G (2018) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a state-of-the-art review. Nucl Med Biomed Imaging 3(4):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ortenzia O, Rossi R, Bertolini M, Nitrosi A, Ghetti C (2018) Physical characterisation of four different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems. RadiatProtDosimetry 181(3):277–289

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Sundell VM, Jousi M, Hukkinen K, Blanco R, Mäkelä T, Kaasalainen T (2019) A phantom study comparing technical image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems. Phys Med 63:122–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Marshall NW, Bosmans H (2012) Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems. Phys Med Biol 57:7629–7650

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yoshinari ODA, Takaaki ITO, Keiichiro SATO, Morita J (2014) Development of digital mammography system “AMULET Innovality” for examining breast cancer. Fujifilm research & development (No. 59)

  46. Chan HP, Helvie MA, Hadjiisky L, Jeffries DO et al (2017) Characterization of breast masses in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammograms: an observer performance study. AcadRadiol 24(11):1372–1379

    Google Scholar 

  47. Calliste J, Wu G, Laganis PE (2017) Second generation stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system with faster scan time and wider angular span. Med Phys 44:4482–4495

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chan HP, Goodsitt M, Helvie MA, Zelakiewicz S et al (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments and number of projection views. Radiology 273:3

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hadjipanteli A, Elangovan P, Looney P, Mackenzie A, Wells K, Dance DR, Young KC (2016) Detection of microcalcification clusters in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis and the relation to the standard method of measuring image quality. In: XIV Mediterranean conference on medical and biological engineering and computing 2016, IFMBE proceedings 57, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32703-7_44

  50. Lamastra R, Barca P, Bisogni MG et al (2020) Image quality comparison between synthetic 2D mammograms obtained with 15° and 40° X-ray tube angular range: a quantitative phantom study. In: Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference on biomedical engineering systems and technologies-BIOIMAGING vol 2, pp 184–191

  51. Fluke Biomedical (2005) Mammographic accreditation phantom operators manual, Manual No. 18-220-1 Rev. 2

  52. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. (EUREF)

  53. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2013) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis Supplement EUREF.

  54. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2018) Protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of digital breast tomosynthesis systems (EUREF)

  55. European Federation of Organisations For Medical Physics. Quality controls in digital mammography (2015) Protocol of the EFOMP mammo working group

  56. The National Cancer Screening Service Board (2008) Guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. The National Cancer Screening Service Board, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  57. https://medphys.royalsurrey.nhs.uk/nccpm/. Accessed 27 Jun 2019

  58. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM (2012) The essential physics of medical imaging, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  59. Siewersen JH, Cunningham IA, Jaffray DA (2002) A framework for noise-power spectrum analysis of multidimensional images. Med Phys 29(11):2655–2671

    Google Scholar 

  60. Goodsitt MM, Chan HP, Schmitz A, Zelakiewicz S, Telang S, Hadjiiski L et al (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis: studies of effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images. Phys Med Biol 59(19):5883–5902

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Dance DR, Christofides S, Maidment ADA, McLean ID, Ng KH (2014) Diagnostic radiology physics: a handbook for teachers and students. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  62. Artinis Medical Systems (2010) Contrast-detail phantom CDMAM 3.4 Manual-Version 7

  63. Young KC, Brookes E, Hudson W, Halling-Brown MD (2012) CDMAM analyzer: software and instruction manual for automated determination of threshold contrast-Version 1.5.5

  64. Karssmeijer N, Thijssen MAO (1996) Determination of contrast-detail curves of mammography systems by automated image analysis. Digital Mammography. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 155–160

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gang GJ, Tward DJ, Lee J, Siewerdsen JH (2010) Anatomical background and generalized detectability in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT. Med Phys 37(5):1948–1965

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Gang GJ, Lee J, Stayman JW, Tward DJ, Zbijewski W, Prince JR, Siewerdsen JH (2011) Analysis of Fourier-domain task-based detectability index in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT in relation to human observer performance. Med Phys 38(4):1754–1768

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Nosratieh A, Yang K, Aminololama-Shakeri S, Boone JM (2012) Comprehensive assessment of the slice sensitivity profiles in breast tomosynthesis and breast CT. Med Phys 39(12):7254–7261

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Samei E, Murphy S, Richard S (2013) Assessment of multi-directional MTF for breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol 58(5):1649–1661

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Meyblum E, Gardavaud F, Dao TH, Fournier V, Beaussart P, Pigneur F, Baranes L, Rahmouni A, Luciani A (2015) Breast tomosynthesis: dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom. DiagnInterv Imaging 96(9):931–939

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Rodríguez-Ruiz A, Castillo M, Garayoa J, Chevalier M (2017) Evaluation of the technical performance of three different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems in the clinical environment. Phys Med 32(6):767–777

    Google Scholar 

  71. Maldera A, De Marco P, Colombo PE, Origgi D, Torresin A (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis: dose and image quality assessment. Phys Med 33:56–67

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Mackenzie A, Marshall NW, Hadjipanteli A, Dance DR, Bosmans H, Young KC (2017) Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials. Phys Med Biol 62(6):2376–2397

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Baldelli P, Bertolini M, Contillo A, Della Gala G, Golinelli P, Pagan L, Rivetti S, Taibi A (2018) A comparative study of physical image quality in digital and synthetic mammography from commercially available mammography systems. Phys Med Biol 63(16):165020

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the RADIOMA Project, funded by Fondazione Pisa, Technological and Scientific Research Sector, Via Pietro Toselli 29, Pisa. We would like to thank the Unit of Medical Physics "SOC Fisica Sanitaria Firenze ed Empoli-Azienda USL Toscana Centro" for their support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, University of Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127, Pisa, Italy

    Patrizio Barca, Rocco Lamastra, Raffaele Maria Tucciariello & Maria Evelina Fantacci

  2. INFN, Pisa Section, Pisa, Italy

    Rocco Lamastra, Raffaele Maria Tucciariello & Maria Evelina Fantacci

  3. Unit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital “Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana”, Pisa, Italy

    Antonio Traino

  4. S.D. Radiologia Senologica, “Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana”, Pisa, Italy

    Carolina Marini

  5. Department of Translational Research and of New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Giacomo Aringhieri & Davide Caramella

Authors
  1. Patrizio Barca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rocco Lamastra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raffaele Maria Tucciariello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonio Traino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carolina Marini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giacomo Aringhieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Davide Caramella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maria Evelina Fantacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrizio Barca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

No Ethics approval was required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barca, P., Lamastra, R., Tucciariello, R.M. et al. Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison. Phys Eng Sci Med 44, 23–35 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-020-00948-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-020-00948-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation