Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reconstructs planar slices of the breast based on two-dimensional angular projections. Early studies and clinical trials show that DBT is an improvement over full field digital mammography (FFDM) because it provides the radiologist with better image quality and more information.
OBJECTIVE:
This paper presents a simulation system to model the performance of a slot-scanning FFDM and DBT system.
METHODS:
A tissue-equivalent three dimensional (3D) breast phantom was constructed, validated for slot-scanning digital mammography and used in simulating digital breast tomosynthesis. The simulation system was validated by comparing images acquired with a slot-scanning mammography machine with simulated phantom images, using the edge-test method and image quality metrics modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE). Different two-dimensional (2D) projections of the 3D phantom were simulated and the phantom was reconstructed using filtered backprojection.
RESULTS:
Image quality metrics showed equivalence between simulated and real images.
CONCLUSIONS:
The simulation tool is suitable for slot-scanning FFDM and DBT and may be used for the design and comparison of mammography systems.
Badal-SolerA., Development of advanced geometric models and acceleration techniques for Monte Carlo simulation in Medical Physics. PhD Thesis, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, 2008.
4.
BadalA. and BadanoA., Accelerating Monte Carlo simulations of photon transport in a voxelized geometry using a massively parallel Graphics Processing Unit, Medical Physics36 (2009), 48784880.
5.
BadalA., KyprianouI., BadanoA. and SempauJ., Monte Carlo simulation of a realistic anatomical phantom described by triangle meshes: Application to prostate brachytherapy imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology86 (2007), 99–103.
6.
BadalA., KyprianouI., BanhD.P., BadanoA. and SempauJ., penMesh Monte Carlo radiation transport simulation in a triangle mesh geometry, IEEE Transactions in Medical Imaging28(12) (2009), 1894–1901.
7.
BadalA., KyprianouI., BadanoA., SempauJ. and MyersK.J., Monte Carlo package for simulating radiographic images of realistic anthropomorphic phantoms described by triangle meshes, SPIE Medical Imaging 2007: Physics of Medical Imaging, Proc. SPIE6510 (2007).
8.
BakicP., AlbertM., BrzakovicD. and MaidmentA., Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation: Breast tissue model and image acquisition simulation, Medical Physics29 (2002), 2131–2139.
9.
BaptistaM., Di MariaS.,
OliveiraN.,
MatelaN.,
and JaneiroL.et al., Image quality and dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: A Monte Carlo study, Radiation Physics and Chemistry104 (2014), 158–162.
10.
ChoiY., ParkH., KimY., KimH. and ChoiJ., Effect of acquisition parameters on digital breast tomosynthesis: Total angular range and number of projection views, Journal of the Korean Physical Society61(11) (2012), 1877–1883.
11.
CiattoS., HoussamiN., BernardiD., CaumoF., PellegriniM., BrunelliS., TuttobeneP., BricoloP., FantòC., ValentiniM., MontemezziS. and MacaskillP., Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): A prospective comparison study, The Lancet Oncology14 (2013), 583–589.
12.
CohenS.L., MargoliesL.R., SzaboJ.R., PatelN.S. and HermannG., Introductory pictorial atlas of 3D tomosynthesis, Clinical Imaging38 (2014), 18–26.
13.
ConantE.F., Clinical implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis, Radiologic Clinics of North America,52 (2014), 499–518.
14.
de VilliersM. and
deJager G., Detective quantum efficiency of the lodox system,, Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 5030, Medical Imaging, 2003.
15.
DestounisS., ArienoA. and MorganR., Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment, Journal of Clinical Imaging Science4 (2014), 9.
16.
DurandM.A., HaasB.M., YaoX., GeiselJ.L., RaghuM., HooleyR.J., HorvathL.J. and PhilpottsL.E., Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography, Radiology274 (2015), 85–92.
17.
FriedewaldS.M., RaffertyE.A., RoseS.L., DurandM.A., PlechaD.M., GreenbergJ.S., HayesM.K., CopitD.S., CarlsonK.L., CinkT.M., BarkeL.D., GreerL.N., MillerD.P. and ConantE.F., Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography, Jama311 (2014), 2499–2507.
18.
HaasB.M., KalraV., GeiselJ., RaghuM., DurandM. and PhilpottsL.E., Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening, Radiology269 (2013), 694–700.
19.
HelvieM.A., Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications, Radiologic Clinics of North America48(5) (2010), 917–929.
20.
HubbardR.A., KerlikowskeK., FlowersC.I., YankaskasB.C., ZhuW. and MigliorettiD.L., Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: A cohort study, Annals of Internal Medicine155 (2011), 481–492.
21.
HuntR., DanceD., BakicP., MaidmentA., SandborgM., UllmanG., et al., Calculation of the properties of digital mammograms using a computer simulation, Radiation Protection Dosimetry114 (2005), 395–398.
22.
HusseinK., VaughanC. and DouglasT.S., Modeling, validation and application of a mathematical tissue-equivalent breast phantom for linear slot-scanning digital mammography, Physics in Medicine and Biology54 (2009), 533–1553.
23.
KarellasA. and VedanthamS., Breast cancer imaging: A perspective for the next decade, Medical Physics35(11) (2008), 4878–4897.
24.
KulkarniM., DendereR., NicollsF., SteinerS. and DouglasT.S., Monte-Carlo simulation of a slot-scanning X-ray imaging system,, Physica Medica32(2016), 284–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.12.003
25.
LourencoA.P., Barry-BrooksM., BairdG.L., TuttleA. and MainieroM.B., Changes in Recall Type and Patient Treatment Following Implementation of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Radiology274 (2015), 337–342.
26.
McCarthyA.M., KontosD., SynnestvedtM., TanK.S., HeitjanD.F., SchnallM. and ConantE.F., Screening Outcomes Following Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a General-Population Screening Program, Journal of the National Cancer Institute106 (2014).
27.
PelowwitzD.B., MCNPX User’s Manual Version 2.7.0. Los Alamos National Laboratory, (2011).
28.
PoludniowskiG., et al., SpekCalc: A program to calculate photon spectra from tungsten anode X-ray tubes, Physics in Medicine and Biology54 (2009), 433–8.
29.
ReiserI., SidkyE. and NishikawaR., Development of an analytical breast phantom for quantitative comparison of reconstruction algorithms for digital breast tomosynthesis. (Lecture Notes on Computer Science vol 4046). Berlin, Springer2006, 190–196.
30.
RothR.G., MaidmentA.D.A., WeinsteinS.P., RothS.O. and ConantE.F., Digital breast tomosynthesis: Lessons learned from early clinical implementation, Radiographics34 (2014), E89–E102.
31.
SalvatF., Fernandez-VareaJ.M. and SempauJ., PENELOPE-2008: A code system for monte carlo simulation of electron and photon transport, Issy-les-Moulineaux France: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (2009). Available at http://www.nea.fr.
32.
SameiE., FlynnM.J. and ReimannD.A., A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device, Medical Physics25 (1998), 102–113.
33.
SechopoulosI. and GhettiC., Optimization of tomosynthesis acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast, Medical Physics, 36 (2009), 11991207.
34.
SechopoulosI., A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications, Medical Physics40 (2012).
35.
SempauJ., AcostaE., BaroJ., Fernandez-VareaJ.M. and SalvatF., An algorithm for Monte Carlo simulation of coupled electron-photon transport, Nuclear Instruments and MethodsB132 (1997), 377–390.
36.
SharpeR.E., VenkataramanS., PhillipsJ., DialaniV., Fein-ZacharyV., PrakashS., SlanetzP.J. and MehtaT.S., Increased cancer detection rate and variations in the recall rate resulting from implementation of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis into a population-based screening program, Radiology278 (2015).
37.
SkaaneP., BandosA.I., GullienR., EbenE.B., EksethU., HaakenaasenU., IzadiM., JebsenI.N., JahrG., KragerM., NiklasonL.T., HofvindS. and GurD., Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program, Radiology267 (2013), 47–56.
38.
StierstorferK. and SpahnM., Self-normalizing method to measure the detective quantum efficiency of a wide range of X-ray detectors, Medical Physics26 (1999), 1312–1318.
