Abstract
The performance of a commercial digital mammographic system working in 2D planar versus tomosynthesis mode was evaluated in terms of the image signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR). A contrast detail phantom was obtained embedding 1 cm Plexiglas, including 49 holes of different diameter and depth, between two layers containing a breast-simulating material. The phantom was exposed with the details plane perpendicular to the X-ray beam using the manufacturer’s standard clinical breast acquisition parameters. SDNR in the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images was higher than that of the full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for 38 out of 49 details in complex background conditions. These differences (p < 0.05) are statistically significant for 19 details out of 38. The relative SDNR results for DBT and FFDM images showed a dependence on the diameter of the details considered. This paper proposes an initial framework for a global image quality evaluation for commercial systems that can operate with different image acquisition modality using the same detector.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
U.S. Food and Drug Administration: MQSA National Statistics Archive. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/archives/0108
Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG, Jong RA: Technical developments in mammography. Health Phys 95:599–611, 2008
Nitrosi A, Borasi G, Nicoli F, Modigliani G, Botti A, Bertolini M, Notari P: A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digit Imaging 20:140–148, 2007
Saunders Jr, RS, Samei E, Jesneck JL, Lo JY: Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. Med Phys 32:588–599, 2005
Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, Albagli D, Han S, Tkaczyk EJ, Landberg CE, Opsahl-Ong B, Granfors PR, Levis I, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE: Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys 27:558–567, 2000
Ghetti C, Borrini A, Ortenzia O, Rossi R, Ordóñez PL: Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors. Med Phys 35:456–462, 2008
Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S: Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 533:560–570, 2004
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783, 2005
Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A: Randomized trial of screenfilm versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo, II study. Radiology 244:708–717, 2007
Ruschin M, Timberg P, Båth M, Hemdal B, Svahn T, Saunders RS, Samei E, Andersson I, Mattsson S, Chakrabort DP, Tingber AM: Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. Med Phys 34:400–407, 2007
Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437, 2001
Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, Landberg CE, Slanetz PJ, Giardino AA, Moore R, Albagli D, DeJule MC, Fitzgerald PF, Fobare DF, Giambattista BW, Kwasnick RF, Liu J, Lubowski SJ, Possin GE, Richotte JF, Wei CY, Wirth RF: Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406, 1997
Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, McCauley T, Phillips W, Kopans DB, Moore RH, Eberhard JW, Opsahl-Ong B, Niklason L, Williams MB: Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 30:365–380, 2003
Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, Kopans DB: A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636–2647, 2004
Wu T, Moore RH, Kopans DB: Voting strategy for artifact reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:2461–2471, 2006
Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, Tingberg A: 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, 2008
Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Glick SJ, D’Orsi CJ, Baker SP, Webber RL: Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. Acad Radiol 7:1085–1097, 2000
Diekmann F, Meyer H, Diekmann S, Puong S, Muller S, Bick U, and Rogalla P. Thick slices from tomosynthesis data sets: phantom study for the evaluation of different algorithms. J Digit Imaging 22:519–526, 2009
Diekmann F, Bick U: Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol 17:3086–3092, 2007
Zhang Y, Chan HP, Sahiner B, Wei J, Goodsitt MM, Hadjiiski LM, Ge J, Zhou C: A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:3781–3795, 2006
Rakowski JT, Dennis MJ: A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for C-arm mammography tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:3018–3032, 2006
American College of Radiology. <http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/BIRADSAtlas/BIRADSAtlasexcerptedtext/BIRADSMammographyFourthEdition/GuidanceChapterDoc6.aspx>
European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer screening and Diagnosis, 4th edition. Luxembourg: CEC, 2006
Park JM, Franken Jr, EA, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT: Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. RadioGraphics 27:S231–S240, 2007
Saunders Jr, RS, Samei E: The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys 35:4464–4473, 2008
Chida K, Komatsu Y, Sai M, Nakagami A, Yamada T, Yamashita T, Mori I, Ishibashi T, Maruoka S, Zuguchi M: Reduced compression mammography to reduce breast pain. Clin Imaging 33:7–10, 2009
Toroi P, Zanca F, Young KC, van Ongeval C, Marchal G, Bosmans H: Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur Radiol 17:2368–2375, 2007
Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Ferrari P, Tassoni D: On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med Phys 30:1719–1731, 2003
Borasi G, Samei E, Bertolini M, Nitrosi A, Tassoni D: Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med Phys 33:1707–1719, 2006
Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Campanini R, Bertolini M, Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Danielli C, Angelini L, Maggi S: Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. Med Phys 33:4198–4209, 2006
Samei E, Dobbins III, JT, Lo JY, Tornai MP: A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital x-ray imaging. Radiat Prot Dosim 114:220–229, 2005
Tapiovaara MJ, Wagner RF: SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging: I. A practical approach based on statistical decision theory. Phys Med Biol 38:71–92, 1993
Siegel S: Nonparametric Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Andy Smith, Dr. Ren Baorui, and Eng. Enrico Tedesco for the cooperation in the experiment and helpful scientific discussion. They also thank Mrs. Roseanne Smith for English revision.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bertolini, M., Nitrosi, A., Borasi, G. et al. Contrast Detail Phantom Comparison on a Commercially Available Unit. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) versus Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM). J Digit Imaging 24, 58–65 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9270-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9270-0