Advertisement

A Modelling Framework for Evaluation of 2D-Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Systems

  • Premkumar Elangovan
  • Alistair Mackenzie
  • Oliver Diaz
  • Alaleh Rashidnasab
  • David R. Dance
  • Kenneth C. Young
  • Lucy M. Warren
  • Eman Shaheen
  • Hilde Bosmans
  • Predrag R. Bakic
  • Kevin Wells
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7361)

Abstract

Planar 2D X-ray mammography is the most common screening technique used for breast cancer detection. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a new and emerging technology that overcomes some of the limitations of conventional planar imaging. However, it is important to understand the impact of these two modalities on cancer detection rates and patient recall. Since it is difficult to adequately evaluate different modalities clinically, a collection of modeling tools is introduced in this paper that can be used to emulate the image acquisition process for both modalities. In this paper, we discuss image simulation chains that can be used for the evaluation of 2D-mammography and DBT systems in terms of both technical factors and observer studies.

Keywords

Digital breast tomosynthesis 2D-mammography modeling simulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin, D.M., Fernandez, L.M.G.: Use of statistics to assess the global burden of breast cancer. The Breast Journal 12, 70–80 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    NHS Breast Screening Programme, Annual Review (2009), http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications
  3. 3.
    Mertelmeier, T., Orman, J., Haerer, W., Dudam, M.K.: Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device. In: Proc. SPIE, vol. 6142, pp. 61420F1-61420F12 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teertstra, H.J., Loo, H.J., Van den Bosch, M.A., Van Tinteren, H., Rutgers, E.J., Muller, S.H., Gilhuijs, K.S.: Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur. Radiol. 20, 16–24 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bakic, R.B., Zhang, C., Maidment, A.D.A.: Development and characterization of an anthropomorphic breast software phantom based upon region-growing algorithm. Med. Phys. 38, 3165–3176 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rashidnasab, A., Elangovan, P., Dance, D.R., Young, K.C., Diaz, O., Wells, K.: Modeling realistic breast lesions using diffusion limited aggregation. In: Proc. SPIE, vol. 8313, p. 83134L (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rashidnasab, A., Elangovan, P., Dance, D.R., Young, K.C., Yip, M., Diaz, O., Wells, K.: Realistic simulation of breast mass appearance using random walk. In: Proc. SPIE, vol. 8313, p. 83130L (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shaheen, E., Ongeval, C.V., Zanca, F., Cockmartin, L., Marshall, N., Jacobs, J., Young, K.C., Dance, D.R., Bosmans, H.: The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Med. Phys. 38, 6659 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siddon, R.L.: “Fast calculation of the exact radiological path for a three-dimensional CT array. Med. Phys. 12, 252–255 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berger, M.J., Hubbell, J.H., Seltzer, S.M., Chang, J., Coursey, J.S., Sukumar, R., Zucker, D.S.: XCOM: Photon cross sections database. NIST Standard Reference Database 8, 87-3597 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boone, J.M., Fewell, T.R., Jennings, R.J.: Molybdenum, Rhodium and Tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. Med. Phys. 24, 1863–1874 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diaz, O., Dance, D.R., Young, K.C., Elangovan, P., Bakic, P.R., Wells, K.: A fast scatter field estimator for digital breast tomosynthesis. In: Proc. SPIE, vol. 8313, p. 831305 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mackenzie, A., Workman, A., Dance, D.R., Yip, M., Wells, K., Young, K.C.: Development and validation of a method for converting images to appear with noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and X-ray system. Med. Phys. 39 (in press, 2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Premkumar Elangovan
    • 1
  • Alistair Mackenzie
    • 2
    • 3
  • Oliver Diaz
    • 1
  • Alaleh Rashidnasab
    • 1
  • David R. Dance
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kenneth C. Young
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lucy M. Warren
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eman Shaheen
    • 4
  • Hilde Bosmans
    • 4
  • Predrag R. Bakic
    • 5
  • Kevin Wells
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal ProcessingUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Royal Surrey County HospitalNCCPMGuildfordUK
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations