Advertisement

Towards a Phantom for Multimodality Performance Evaluation of Breast Imaging: A 3D Structured Phantom with Simulated Lesions Tested for 2D Digital Mammography

  • Kristina Tri Wigati
  • Lesley Cockmartin
  • Nicholas Marshall
  • Djarwani S. Soejoko
  • Hilde BosmansEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9699)

Abstract

The aim of this work is to test whether a 3D structured phantom with simulated lesions can be used for performance evaluation of 2D digital mammography, as a step towards a multimodality phantom. A phantom, developed for breast tomosynthesis was therefore applied on 23 digital mammography systems. Ten images were acquired at the clinically used dose and for 11 systems also at half and double dose. The images were read in a four-alternative forced choice (4-AFC) paradigm by 5 readers. CDMAM phantom acquisitions were also performed. It was possible to calculate diameter thresholds of the simulated masses and microcalcifications that guarantee 62.5 % correct response. The results showed the expected sensitivity with mean glandular dose: detectability of microcalcifications improved with dose, whereas the detectability of masses was not affected. Systems of the same manufacturer and operated at similar doses had very similar detectability scores. Percentage correctly detected microcalcifications with average diameter 119 µm correlated with CDMAM based gold thickness thresholds. Present phantom, developed and tested for tomosynthesis, is also a good candidate for 2D mammography, suggesting its use for (future) benchmarking of at least two types of imaging systems.

Keywords

3D structured phantom Spiculated masses Non-spiculated masses Microcalcifications Image quality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the 4-AFC readers: Andreas Stratis, Frédéric Bemelmans, Michiel Dehairs, and Xochitl Lopez Rendon.

References

  1. 1.
    Cockmartin, L., Marshall, N.W., Zhang, G., Lemmens, K., Shaheen, E., Van Ongeval, C., Fredenberg, E., Dance, D.R., Salvagnini, E., Michielsen, K., Bosmans, H.: A structured phantom for detection performance comparison between breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography, Ph.D. thesis (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cockmartin, L., Marshall, N.W., Bosmans, H.: Design and evaluation of a phantom with structured background for digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. In: Maidment, A.D., Bakic, P.R., Gavenonis, S. (eds.) IWDM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7361, pp. 642–649. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cockmartin, L., Bosmans, H., Marshall, N.W.: Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Med. Phys. 40(081920), 1–17 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gang, G.J., Tward, D.J., Lee, J., Siewerdsen, J.H.: Anatomical background and generalized detectability in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT. Med. Phys. 37, 1948–1965 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaheen, E., De Keyzer, F., Bosmans, H., Dance, D.R., Young, K.C., van Ongeval, C.: The simulation of 3D mass models in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Med. Phys. 41(081913), 1–17 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang, G., Cockmartin, L., Bosmans, H.: A four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) software for observer performance evaluation in radiology. Poster presentation at the SPIE Conference, San Diego (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Figl, M., Hoffmann, R., Kaar, M., Semturs, F., Brasik, N., Birkfellner, W., Homolka, P., Hummel, J.: Factors for conversion between human and automatic read-outs of CDMAM images. Med. Phys. 38, 5090–5093 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Commission: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th ed. Europe against Cancer, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Engen, R., Bosmans, H., Heid, P., Lazzari, B., Schopphoven, S., Thijssen, M., Young, K., Dance, D., Marshall, N.W.: Supplement to the European Guidelines, 4th edn. Health and Consumer Protection - European Communities (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warren, L.M., Mackenzie, A., Cooke, J., Given-Wilson, R.M., Wallis, M.G., Chakraborty, D.P., Dance, D.R., Bosmans, H., Young, K.C.: Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography. Med. Phys. 39, 3202–3213 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Timberg, P., Bàth, M., Andersson, I., Mattsson, S., Tingberg, A.: Visibility of microcalcification clusters and masses in breast tomosynthesis image volumes and digital mammography: a 4AFC human observer study. Med. Phys. 39, 2431–2437 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruschin, M., Timberg, P., Båth, M., Hemdal, B., Svahn, T., Saunders, R., Samei, E., Andersson, I., Mattsson, S., Chakraborty, D.P., Tingberg, A.: Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. Med. Phys. 34, 400–407 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burgess, A.E., Jacobson, F.L., Judy, P.F.: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med. Phys. 28, 419–437 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanal, K.M., Krupinski, E., Berns, E.A., Geiser, W.R., Karellas, A., Mainiero, M.B., Martin, M.C., Patel, S.B., Rubin, D.L., Shepard, J.D., Siegel, E.L., Wolfman, J.A., Mian, T.A., Mahoney, M.C., Wyatt, M.: ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. J. Digit. Imaging 26, 10–25 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristina Tri Wigati
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lesley Cockmartin
    • 3
  • Nicholas Marshall
    • 1
    • 3
  • Djarwani S. Soejoko
    • 2
  • Hilde Bosmans
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Imaging and Pathology, Medical Imaging Research CenterKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural SciencesUniversity of IndonesiaDepokIndonesia
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations