Advertisement

Detection of Microcalcification Clusters in 2D-Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and the Relation to the Standard Method of Measuring Image Quality

  • Andria HadjipanteliEmail author
  • Premkumar Elangovan
  • Padraig Looney
  • Alistair Mackenzie
  • Kevin Wells
  • David R. Dance
  • Kenneth C. Young
Conference paper
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 57)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the detection of microcalcification clusters by human observers in breast images using 2D-mammography and narrow (15° /15 projections) and wide (50° /25 projections) angle digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Furthermore, the relation between the standard European method of measuring mammographic image quality using the CDMAM phantom and the calcification detection in 2D mammography and DBT was investigated. Images of 6 cm thick simulated compressed breasts, were produced with and without inserted microcalcification clusters using a set of image modelling tools, which were developed to represent clinical imaging by mammography and DBT. The simulated microcalcification clusters had a range of microcalcification diameters (100 μm-500 μm). Commercially available software was used for image processing and image reconstruction. The images were then used in a series of 4-alternative forced choice human observer experiments conducted for signal detection with the microcalcification clusters as targets. For each of the three imaging modalities the threshold diameter required for microcalcification detection was determined. Results showed that 2D-mammography has a lower threshold diameter for microcalcification detection than both DBT imaging modalities and that narrow angle DBT has a lower threshold diameter than wide angle DBT. Additionally, it was shown that the CDMAM-determined threshold gold thickness is a good predictor of microcalcification detection.

Keywords

Mammography Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Calcification detection CDMAM Geometry optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Niklason LT (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicentre, multireader trial. Radiology, 266(1): 104-113.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis, Breast J, 17(6): 638-644.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Smukin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C, Chough DM, Shah R, Gur D (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2): 320-324.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chan HP, Goodsitt MM, Helvie MA, Zelakiewicz S, Schitz A, Noroozian M, Paramagul C, Roubidoux MA, Nees AV, Neal CH, Carson P, Lu Y, Hadjiski L, Wei J (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): 675-685.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sechopoulos I, Ghetti C (2009) Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med. Phys. 36(4):1199-1207.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and diagnostic services (2015) Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of digital breast tomosynthesis systems, 1st ed.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elangovan P, Rashindanasab A, Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Young KC, Bosmans H, Segars, WP, Wells K (2014) Performance comparison of breast imaging modalities using a 4AFC human observer study. Proc. of SPIE (9412).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shaheen E, Van Ongeval C, Zanca F, Cockmartin L, Marshall N, Jacobs J, Young KC, Dance DR (2011) The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis,.Med. Phys. 38(12): 6659-71.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elangovan P, Warren L M, Mackenzie A, Diaz O, Rashidnasab A, Dance DR, Bosmans H, Young KC, Wells K (2014) Development and validation of a modelling framework for simulating 2D-mammography and breast tomosynthesis images. Phys. Med. Biol. 59(15): 4275–4293.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouwman RW, van Engen RE, Young KC, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJM, Schopphoven S, Jeujens CRLPN, Veldkamp WJH, Dance DR (2015) Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data (under submission).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Workman A, Yip M, Wells K, Young KC (2012) 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(5): 2721-2734.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Diaz O and Young KC (2014) Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities. Med. Phys. 41(12): 121901-1-14.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burgess A E (1995) Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement method. Med. Phys., 22(5): 643-655.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strudley CJ, Looney P, Young K (2014) Technical evaluation of Hologic Selenia Dimensions digital breast tomosynthesis system, NHSBSP Equipment Report 1307, Version 2, NHS Cancer Screening Programmes.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strudley CJ, Warren LM, Young KC (2015) Technical evaluation of Siemens Mammomat Inspiration of digital breast tomosynthesis, NHSBSP Equipment Report 1307, Version 2, NHS Cancer Screening Programmes.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andria Hadjipanteli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Premkumar Elangovan
    • 2
  • Padraig Looney
    • 1
  • Alistair Mackenzie
    • 1
  • Kevin Wells
    • 2
  • David R. Dance
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kenneth C. Young
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey County HospitalGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal ProcessingUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations