Literature DB >> 23635284

A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data.

Stefano Young1, Predrag R Bakic, Kyle J Myers, Robert J Jennings, Subok Park.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising breast cancer screening tool that has already begun making inroads into clinical practice. However, there is ongoing debate over how to quantitatively evaluate and optimize these systems, because different definitions of image quality can lead to different optimal design strategies. Powerful and accurate tools are desired to extend our understanding of DBT system optimization and validate published design principles.
METHODS: The authors developed a virtual trial framework for task-specific DBT assessment that uses digital phantoms, open-source x-ray transport codes, and a projection-space, spatial-domain observer model for quantitative system evaluation. The authors considered evaluation of reconstruction algorithms as a separate problem and focused on the information content in the raw, unfiltered projection images. Specifically, the authors investigated the effects of scan angle and number of angular projections on detectability of a small (3 mm diameter) signal embedded in randomly-varying anatomical backgrounds. Detectability was measured by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Experiments were repeated for three test cases where the detectability-limiting factor was anatomical variability, quantum noise, or electronic noise. The authors also juxtaposed the virtual trial framework with other published studies to illustrate its advantages and disadvantages.
RESULTS: The large number of variables in a virtual DBT study make it difficult to directly compare different authors' results, so each result must be interpreted within the context of the specific virtual trial framework. The following results apply to 25% density phantoms with 5.15 cm compressed thickness and 500 μm(3) voxels (larger 500 μm(2) detector pixels were used to avoid voxel-edge artifacts): 1. For raw, unfiltered projection images in the anatomical-variability-limited regime, AUC appeared to remain constant or increase slightly with scan angle. 2. In the same regime, when the authors fixed the scan angle, AUC increased asymptotically with the number of projections. The threshold number of projections for asymptotic AUC performance depended on the scan angle. In the quantum- and electronic-noise dominant regimes, AUC behaviors as a function of scan angle and number of projections sometimes differed from the anatomy-limited regime. For example, with a fixed scan angle, AUC generally decreased with the number of projections in the electronic-noise dominant regime. These results are intended to demonstrate the capabilities of the virtual trial framework, not to be used as optimization rules for DBT.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors have demonstrated a novel simulation framework and tools for evaluating DBT systems in an objective, task-specific manner. This framework facilitates further investigation of image quality tradeoffs in DBT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23635284      PMCID: PMC3651214          DOI: 10.1118/1.4800501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  39 in total

1.  A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images.

Authors:  Robert S Saunders; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  A three-dimensional breast software phantom for mammography simulation.

Authors:  K Bliznakova; Z Bliznakov; V Bravou; Z Kolitsi; N Pallikarakis
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-11-21       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  penMesh--Monte Carlo radiation transport simulation in a triangle mesh geometry.

Authors:  Andreu Badal; Iacovos Kyprianou; Diem Phuc Banh; Aldo Badano; Josep Sempau
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2009-05-08       Impact factor: 10.048

4.  Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos; Caterina Ghetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Methodology for generating a 3D computerized breast phantom from empirical data.

Authors:  Christina M Li; W Paul Segars; Georgia D Tourassi; John M Boone; James T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads.

Authors:  James T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Mini Das; Howard C Gifford; J Michael O'Connor; Stephen J Glick
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Absorbed radiation dose in mammography.

Authors:  G R Hammerstein; D W Miller; D R White; M E Masterson; H Q Woodard; J S Laughlin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1979-02       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Optimal x-ray spectra for screen-film mammography.

Authors:  R J Jennings; R J Eastgate; M P Siedband; D L Ergun
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1981 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues.

Authors:  P C Johns; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  13 in total

1.  Use of the Hotelling observer to optimize image reconstruction in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Adrian A Sánchez; Emil Y Sidky; Xiaochuan Pan
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-12-22

2.  Population of 224 realistic human subject-based computational breast phantoms.

Authors:  David W Erickson; Jered R Wells; Gregory M Sturgeon; Ehsan Samei; James T Dobbins; W Paul Segars; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk.

Authors:  Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  The Effect of Contrast Material on Radiation Dose at CT: Part I. Incorporation of Contrast Material Dynamics in Anthropomorphic Phantoms.

Authors:  Pooyan Sahbaee; W Paul Segars; Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  A Virtual Clinical Trial of FDG-PET Imaging of Breast Cancer: Effect of Variability on Response Assessment.

Authors:  Robert L Harrison; Brian F Elston; Robert K Doot; Thomas K Lewellen; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.243

6.  Investigating simulation-based metrics for characterizing linear iterative reconstruction in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Sean D Rose; Adrian A Sanchez; Emil Y Sidky; Xiaochuan Pan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Synthetic breast phantoms from patient based eigenbreasts.

Authors:  Gregory M Sturgeon; Subok Park; William Paul Segars; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: studies of the effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images.

Authors:  Mitchell M Goodsitt; Heang-Ping Chan; Andrea Schmitz; Scott Zelakiewicz; Santosh Telang; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Kuanwong Watcharotone; Mark A Helvie; Chintana Paramagul; Colleen Neal; Emmanuel Christodoulou; Sandra C Larson; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  The Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health: Impact of Science on Regulatory Policy: An Update.

Authors:  Merina Elahi; Noha Eshera; Nkosazana Bambata; Helen Barr; Beverly Lyn-Cook; Julie Beitz; Maria Rios; Deborah R Taylor; Marilyn Lightfoote; Nada Hanafi; Lowri DeJager; Paddy Wiesenfeld; Pamela E Scott; Emmanuel O Fadiran; Marsha B Henderson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Evaluation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as Replacement of Full-Field Digital Mammography Using an In Silico Imaging Trial.

Authors:  Aldo Badano; Christian G Graff; Andreu Badal; Diksha Sharma; Rongping Zeng; Frank W Samuelson; Stephen J Glick; Kyle J Myers
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2018-11-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.