Literature DB >> 30738528

The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Andria Hadjipanteli1, Premkumar Elangovan2, Alistair Mackenzie2, Kevin Wells3, David R Dance4, Kenneth C Young4.   

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is currently under consideration for replacement of, or combined use with 2D-mammography in national breast screening programmes. To investigate the potential benefits that DBT can bring to screening, the threshold detectable lesion diameters were measured for different forms of DBT in comparison to 2D-mammography. The aim of this study was to compare the threshold detectable mass diameters obtained with narrow angle (15°/15 projections) and wide angle (50°/25 projections) DBT in comparison to 2D-mammography. Simulated images of 60 mm thick compressed breasts were produced with and without masses using a set of validated image modelling tools for 2D-mammography and DBT. Image processing and reconstruction were performed using commercial software. A series of 4-alternative forced choice (4AFC) experiments was conducted for signal detection with the masses as targets. The threshold detectable mass diameter was found for each imaging modality with a mean glandular dose of 2.5 mGy. The resulting values of the threshold diameter for 2D-mammography (10.2 ± 1.4 mm) were found to be larger (p < 0.001) than those for narrow angle DBT (6.0 ± 1.1 mm) and wide angle DBT (5.6 ± 1.2 mm). There was no significant difference between the threshold diameters for wide and narrow angle DBT. Implications for the introduction of DBT alone or in combination with 2D-mammography in breast cancer screening are discussed.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2D-mammography; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Masses

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30738528     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.11.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med        ISSN: 1120-1797            Impact factor:   2.685


  6 in total

1.  Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.

Authors:  Patrizio Barca; Rocco Lamastra; Raffaele Maria Tucciariello; Antonio Traino; Carolina Marini; Giacomo Aringhieri; Davide Caramella; Maria Evelina Fantacci
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2020-11-23

2.  Development of an algorithm to convert mammographic images to appear as if acquired with different technique factors.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Joana Boita; David R Dance; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-06-08

3.  Validation of a mammographic image quality modification algorithm using 3D-printed breast phantoms.

Authors:  Joana Boita; Alistair Mackenzie; Ruben E van Engen; Mireille Broeders; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2021-05-20

Review 4.  The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.

Authors:  A Hadjipanteli; M Kontos; A Constantinidou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 5.  Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review.

Authors:  Ehsan Abadi; William P Segars; Benjamin M W Tsui; Paul E Kinahan; Nick Bottenus; Alejandro F Frangi; Andrew Maidment; Joseph Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-04-11

6.  Virtual Clinical Trials in 2D and 3D X-ray Breast Imaging and Dosimetry: Comparison of CPU-Based and GPU-Based Monte Carlo Codes.

Authors:  Giovanni Mettivier; Antonio Sarno; Youfang Lai; Bruno Golosio; Viviana Fanti; Maria Elena Italiano; Xun Jia; Paolo Russo
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 6.639

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.