A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images

Abstract

Objective

The complexity of anatomical structure within the breast represents the ultimate limit to signal detection on a mammogram. To increase lesion conspicuity Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) has been recently proposed and several manufacturers are currently performing clinical trials. In this study we investigate the potential of DBT with variable dose distribution by using a phantom in which details of interest are within a heterogeneous background.

Methods

To compare the performance of a commercial digital mammography unit and a DBT prototype, 2D and 3D images of the breast phantom were obtained at similar dose levels.

Results

As expected, DBT showed superior performance over digital mammography. Although certain details of interest are not detectable with digital mammography, DBT can reveal their signal by reducing the complexity of tissue structures. Additionally, the potential of the central projection in variable dose DBT is similar to the standard projection obtained with digital mammography. Finally, the uniform and variable dose approaches provided almost identical reconstructed slices.

Conclusion

This preliminary investigation demonstrates that breast tomosynthesis acquired with variable dose distribution exhibits inherent 3D reconstruction advantages for structure noise removal and provides a 2D projection with a physical image quality close to that of standard mammography.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Dobbins JT, Godfrey DJ (2003) Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 48:R65–R106

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, Timberg A (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, Pescarini L, Polico I, Proietti A, Toffoli A, Muzzio PC (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, McCauley T, Phillips W, Kopans DB, Moore RH, Eberhard JW, Opsahl-Ong B, Niklason L, Williams MB (2003) Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 30:365–380

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Stanton M, Stewart A, Phillips W (2004) Method and system for low-dose three-dimensional imaging of a scene, United States Patent 6744848

  7. 7.

    Das M, Gifford HC, O’Connor JM, Glick SJ (2009) Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 36:1976–1984

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    http://www.imsitaly.com/

  9. 9.

    http://www.anrad.com/products-direct-xray-detectors.htm

  10. 10.

    Zhao B, Zhao W (2008) Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system. Med Phys 35:1978–1987

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chawla AS, Lo JY, Baker JA, Samei E (2009) Optimized image acquisition for breast tomosynthesis in projection and reconstruction space. Med Phys 36:4859–4869

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sechopoulos I, Ghetti C (2009) Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 36:1199–1207

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    European Commission (2006) European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 4th edition

  14. 14.

    http://www.cirsinc.com/020_mammo.html

  15. 15.

    http://www.dexela.com

  16. 16.

    Kastanis I, Arridge S, Stewart A, Gunn S, Ullberg C, Francke T (2010) 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Using Total Variation Regularization, LNCS vol. 5116 Springer Heidelberg

  17. 17.

    Sotthivirat S, Fessler JA (2002) Image recovery using partitioned-separable paraboloidal surrogate coordinate ascent algorithms. IEEE Trans Image Process 11:306–317

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Taibi A (2009) Generalized subtraction methods in digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 72:447–453

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bochud FO, Valley J-F, Verdun FR, Hessler C, Schnyder P (1999) Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. Med Phys 26:1365–1370

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Sara Vecchio holds a post-doc grant which is partly supported by the IMS company. Dr Angelo Taibi is also scientific consultant of the IMS company.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelo Taibi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vecchio, S., Albanese, A., Vignoli, P. et al. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Eur Radiol 21, 1207–1213 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-2041-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Tomosynthesis
  • Digital mammography
  • Breast phantom
  • X-ray imaging
  • Variable dose