Quantitative assessment of microcalcification cluster image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis, 2-dimensional and synthetic mammography

被引:11
|
作者
Petropoulos, Andreas E. [1 ]
Skiadopoulos, Spyros G. [1 ]
Karahaliou, Anna N. [1 ]
Messaris, Gerasimos A. T. [2 ]
Arikidis, Nikolaos S. [1 ]
Costaridou, Lena I. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Patras, Sch Med, Dept Med Phys, Patras 26504, Greece
[2] Univ Hosp Patras, Dept Med Phys, Patras 26504, Greece
关键词
Digital mammography; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Synthetic 2D images; Microcalcification cluster; Signal-difference-to-noise ratio; PERFORMANCE; DBT; 2D; TEXTURE; PHANTOM;
D O I
10.1007/s11517-019-02072-0
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Quantitative assessment of microcalcification (MC) cluster image quality is presented, in terms of cluster signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) intercomparison among digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2-dimensional (2D) and synthetic-2-dimensional (s2D) mammography. A phantom that provides realistic appearance of MC clusters located in uniform and nonuniform background was imaged in 2D and DBT, considering various scattering conditions. MC cluster SDNR differentiation is investigated with respect to MC particle size (uniform background) and surrounding parenchyma density (nonuniform background). An accurate MC cluster segmentation method was used to delineate individual MC particles and estimate MC cluster SDNR. Analysis of the uniform part of the phantom indicated higher performance of DBT and 2D over s2D for the smallest cluster size (106-177 mu m), no difference among mammographic modes for the largest MC cluster (224-354 mu m), and enhanced role of 2D for decreasing cluster size and increasing scattering. Analysis of the nonuniform part of the phantom indicated DBT performed better than 2D and s2D in case of dense parenchyma pattern, while 2D and s2D did not differ across parenchyma density patterns and scattering conditions. The presented MC cluster SDNR analysis was capable of revealing subtle differences among mammographic modes and suggests a methodology for clinical image quality assessment.
引用
收藏
页码:187 / 209
页数:23
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications
    Ji Soo Choi
    Boo-Kyung Han
    Eun Young Ko
    Ga Ram Kim
    Eun Sook Ko
    Ko Woon Park
    European Radiology, 2019, 29 : 319 - 329
  • [32] Image quality and dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: A Monte Carlo study
    Baptista, M.
    Di Maria, S.
    Oliveira, N.
    Matela, N.
    Janeiro, L.
    Almeida, P.
    Vaz, P.
    RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, 2014, 104 : 158 - 162
  • [33] Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Two-dimensional Mammography Response
    Sharpe, Richard E., Jr.
    Mehta, Tejas
    Venkataraman, Shambhavi
    RADIOLOGY, 2016, 280 (03) : 981 - 981
  • [34] Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories
    Mariscotti, Giovanna
    Durando, Manuela
    Houssami, Nehmat
    Fasciano, Mirella
    Tagliafico, Alberto
    Bosco, Davide
    Casella, Cristina
    Bogetti, Camilla
    Bergamasco, Laura
    Fonio, Paolo
    Gandini, Giovanni
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 166 (03) : 765 - 773
  • [35] Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories
    Giovanna Mariscotti
    Manuela Durando
    Nehmat Houssami
    Mirella Fasciano
    Alberto Tagliafico
    Davide Bosco
    Cristina Casella
    Camilla Bogetti
    Laura Bergamasco
    Paolo Fonio
    Giovanni Gandini
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2017, 166 : 765 - 773
  • [36] Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Alabousi, Mostafa
    Wadera, Akshay
    Al-Ghita, Mohammed Kashif
    Al-Ghetaa, Rayeh Kashef
    Salameh, Jean-Paul
    Pozdnyakov, Alex
    Zha, Nanxi
    Samoilov, Lucy
    Sharifabadi, Anahita Dehmoobad
    Sadeghirad, Behnam
    Freitas, Vivianne
    McInnes, Matthew D. F.
    Alabousi, Abdullah
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2021, 113 (06): : 680 - 690
  • [37] Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography
    Zuckerman, Samantha P.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Conant, Emily F.
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 297 (03) : 545 - 553
  • [38] Automated Breast Density Assessment for Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Jiang, Shu
    Bennett, Debbie L.
    Chen, Simin
    Toriola, Adetunji T.
    Colditz, Graham A.
    CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH, 2025, 18 (01) : 23 - 29
  • [39] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program
    Hofvind, Solveig
    Hovda, Tone
    Holen, Asne S.
    Lee, Christoph I.
    Albertsen, Judy
    Bjorndal, Hilde
    Brandal, Siri H. B.
    Gullien, Randi
    Lomo, Jon
    Park, Daehoon
    Romundstad, Linda
    Suhrke, Pal
    Vigeland, Einar
    Skaane, Per
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 287 (03) : 787 - 794
  • [40] Could Breast Tomosynthesis With Synthetic View Mammography Aid Standard Two-Dimensional Mammography in Evaluation at Symptomatic Triple Assessment Breast Clinics?
    O'Brien, Amy C.
    O'Neill, Ailbhe
    Tee, Syer Ree
    Seymour, Eileen
    O'Keeffe, Sheena
    McNally, Sorcha
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 13 (10)