Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Comparison of synthetic 2D images with planar and tomosynthesis imaging of the breast using a virtual clinical trial
Author(s): Alistair Mackenzie; Sukhmanjit Kaur; Premkumar Elangovan; David R. Dance; Kennth C. Young
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

The aim was to measure the threshold diameter for detection of masses and calcifications in synthetic 2D images created from planes of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) of a mathematical breast phantom. The results were compared to those for 2D images and DBT. Simulated ill-defined masses and calcification clusters were inserted into mathematical breast models with a thickness of 53mm. The images were simulated as if acquired on a Siemens Inspiration X-ray system. Acquisitions of 2D and DBT images of the breast phantom at a mean glandular dose (MGD) of 1.6mGy were simulated using ray tracing with allowance for unsharpness and the addition of scatter and noise. The resultant images were processed using the manufacturer’s software to create 2D, DBT planes and synthetic 2D images. Image patches with or without the lesion were extracted. These patches were used in a 4-alternative forced choice study using 5 observers to measure the threshold diameter for each imaging mode. The threshold diameters of the masses and microcalcifications were 7.0mm, 6.3mm, 7.1mm and 4.9mm (masses) and 395μm, 211μm, 220μm, and 357μm (calcifications) for synthetic 2D, 2D (1.6mGy), 2D (1.1mGy) and DBT respectively. The threshold diameters were 10% (p=0.4) and 47% (p<0.0001) smaller for 2D images compared to synthetic 2D images for masses and calcification respectively at a MGD of 1.6mGy. At the same dose, the threshold diameter for small calcifications was larger for synthetic 2D images than 2D images, but no significant differences were found for masses between 2D and synthetic 2D.

Paper Details

Date Published: 7 March 2018
PDF: 9 pages
Proc. SPIE 10577, Medical Imaging 2018: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 105770H (7 March 2018); doi: 10.1117/12.2293070
Show Author Affiliations
Alistair Mackenzie, Royal Surrey County Hospital (United Kingdom)
Sukhmanjit Kaur, Royal Surrey County Hospital (United Kingdom)
Univ. of Surrey (United Kingdom)
Premkumar Elangovan, Royal Surrey County Hospital (United Kingdom)
David R. Dance, Royal Surrey County Hospital (United Kingdom)
Univ. of Surrey (United Kingdom)
Kennth C. Young, Royal Surrey County Hospital (United Kingdom)
Univ. of Surrey (United Kingdom)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 10577:
Medical Imaging 2018: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Robert M. Nishikawa; Frank W. Samuelson, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top