1
|
Sengupta A, Badal A, Makeev A, Badano A. Computational models of direct and indirect X-ray breast imaging detectors for in silico trials. Med Phys 2022; 49:6856-6870. [PMID: 35997076 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15935] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2022] [Revised: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/28/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To facilitate in silico studies that investigate digital mammography (DM) and breast tomosynthesis (DBT), models replicating the variety in imaging performance of the DM and DBT systems, observed across manufacturers are needed. PURPOSE The main purpose of this work is to develop generic physics models for direct and indirect detector technology used in commercially available systems, with the goal of making them available open source to manufacturers to further tweak and develop the exact in silico replicas of their systems. METHODS We recently reported on an in silico version of the SIEMENS Mammomat Inspiration DM/DBT system using an open-source GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo x-ray imaging simulation code (MC-GPU). We build on the previous version of the MC-GPU codes to mimic the imaging performances of two other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved DM/DBT systems, such as Hologic Selenia Dimensions (HSD) and the General Electric Senographe Pristina (GSP) systems. In this work, we developed a hybrid technique to model the optical spread and signal crosstalk observed in the GSP and HSD systems. MC simulations are used to track each x-ray photon till its first interaction within the x-ray detector. On the other hand, the signal spread in the x-ray detectors is modeled using previously developed analytical equations. This approach allows us to preserve the modeling accuracy offered by MC methods in the patient body, while speeding up secondary carrier transport (either electron-hole pairs or optical photons) using analytical equations in the detector. The analytical optical spread model for the indirect detector includes the depth-dependent spread and collection of optical photons and relies on a pre-computed set of point response functions that describe the optical spread as a function of depth. To understand the capabilities of the computational x-ray detector models, we compared image quality metrics like modulation transfer function (MTF), normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS), and detective quantum efficiency (DQE), simulated with our models against measured data. Please note that the purpose of these comparisons with measured data would be to gauge if the model developed as part of this work could replicate commercially used direct and indirect technology in general and not to achieve perfect fits with measured data. RESULTS We found that the simulated image quality metrics such as MTF, NNPS, and DQE were in reasonable agreement with experimental data. To demonstrate the imaging performance of the three DM/DBT systems, we integrated the detector models with the VICTRE pipeline and simulated DM images of a fatty breast model containing a spiculated mass and a calcium oxalate cluster. In general, we found that the images generated using the indirect model appeared more blurred with a different noise texture and contrast as compared to the systems with direct detectors. CONCLUSIONS We have presented computational models of three commercially available FDA-approved DM/DBT systems, which implement both direct and indirect detector technology. The updated versions of the MC-GPU codes that can be used to replicate three systems are available in open source format through GitHub.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aunnasha Sengupta
- Division of Imaging, Diagnostics and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Andreu Badal
- Division of Imaging, Diagnostics and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Andrey Makeev
- Division of Imaging, Diagnostics and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Aldo Badano
- Division of Imaging, Diagnostics and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mackenzie A, Boita J, Dance DR, Young KC. Development of an algorithm to convert mammographic images to appear as if acquired with different technique factors. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2022; 9:033504. [DOI: 10.1117/1.jmi.9.3.033504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Alistair Mackenzie
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Guil
| | - Joana Boita
- Radboud University Medical Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen
| | - David R. Dance
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Guil
| | - Kenneth C. Young
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Guil
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Seconde lecture en dépistage organisé du cancer du sein. États des lieux et perspectives d’évolution. Bull Cancer 2022; 109:768-779. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2022.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2021] [Revised: 02/22/2022] [Accepted: 03/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
4
|
Mackenzie A, Kaur S, Thomson EL, Mitchell M, Elangovan P, Warren LM, Dance DR, Young KC. Effect of glandularity on the detection of simulated cancers in planar, tomosynthesis, and synthetic 2D imaging of the breast using a hybrid virtual clinical trial. Med Phys 2021; 48:6859-6868. [PMID: 34496038 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15216] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Revised: 07/19/2021] [Accepted: 08/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to measure the threshold diameter of calcifications and masses for 2D imaging, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthetic 2D images, for a range of breast glandularities. This study shows the limits of detection for each of the technologies and the strengths and weaknesses of each in terms of visualizing the radiological features of small cancers. METHODS Mathematical voxel breast phantoms with glandularities by volume of 9%, 18%, and 30% with a thickness of 53 mm were created. Simulated ill-defined masses and calcification clusters with a range of diameters were inserted into some of these breast models. The imaging characteristics of a Siemens Inspiration X-ray system were measured for a 29 kV, tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination. Ray tracing through the breast models was undertaken to create simulated 2D and DBT projection images. These were then modified to adjust the image sharpness, and to add scatter and noise. The mean glandular doses for the images were 1.43, 1.47, and 1.47 mGy for 2D and 1.92, 1.97, and 1.98 mGy for DBT for the three glandularities. The resultant images were processed to create 2D, DBT planes and synthetic 2D images. Patches of the images with or without a simulated lesion were extracted, and used in a four-alternative forced choice study to measure the threshold diameters for each imaging mode, lesion type, and glandularity. The study was undertaken by six physicists. RESULTS The threshold diameters of the lesions were 6.2, 4.9, and 6.7 mm (masses) and 225, 370, and 399 μm, (calcifications) for 2D, DBT, and synthetic 2D, respectively, for a breast glandularity of 18%. The threshold diameter of ill-defined masses is significantly smaller for DBT than for both 2D (p≤0.006) and synthetic 2D (p≤0.012) for all glandularities. Glandularity has a significant effect on the threshold diameter of masses, even for DBT where there is reduced background structure in the images. The calcification threshold diameters for 2D images were significantly smaller than for DBT and synthetic 2D for all glandularities. There were few significant differences for the threshold diameter of calcifications between glandularities, indicating that the background structure has little effect on the detection of calcifications. We measured larger but nonsignificant differences in the threshold diameters for synthetic 2D imaging than for 2D imaging for masses in the 9% (p = 0.059) and 18% (p = 0.19) glandularities. The threshold diameters for synthetic 2D imaging were larger than for 2D imaging for calcifications (p < 0.001) for all glandularities. CONCLUSIONS We have shown that glandularity has only a small effect on the detection of calcifications, but the threshold diameter of masses was significantly larger for higher glandularity for all of the modalities tested. We measured nonsignificantly larger threshold diameters for synthetic 2D imaging than for 2D imaging for masses at the 9% (p = 0.059) and 18% (p = 0.19) glandularities and significantly larger diameters for calcifications (p < 0.001) for all glandularities. The lesions simulated were very subtle and further work is required to examine the clinical effect of not seeing the smallest calcifications in clusters.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alistair Mackenzie
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Sukhmanjit Kaur
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Emma L Thomson
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Melissa Mitchell
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Premkumar Elangovan
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Lucy M Warren
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - David R Dance
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Kenneth C Young
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Boita J, van Engen RE, Mackenzie A, Tingberg A, Bosmans H, Bolejko A, Zackrisson S, Wallis MG, Ikeda DM, Van Ongeval C, Pijnappel R, Broeders M, Sechopoulos I. How does image quality affect radiologists' perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? Eur Radiol 2021; 31:5335-5343. [PMID: 33475774 PMCID: PMC8213590 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07679-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 12/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To study how radiologists' perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality. METHODS One view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise) and three post-processing-related issues (lower and higher contrast and increased correlated noise) seen during clinical evaluation of DM systems. The images were shown to fifteen breast screening radiologists from five countries. Aware of lesion location, the radiologists selected the most-degraded mammogram (indexed from 1 (reference) to 7 (most degraded)) they still felt was acceptable for interpretation. The median selected index, per degradation type, was calculated separately for calcification and soft tissue (including normal) cases. Using the two-sided, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median indices for each case and degradation type were compared. RESULTS Radiologists were not tolerant to increases (medians: 1.5 (calcifications) and 2 (soft tissue)) or decreases (median: 2, for both types) in contrast, but were more tolerant to correlated noise (median: 3, for both types). Increases in quantum noise were tolerated more for calcifications than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.02). Spatial resolution losses were considered less acceptable for calcification detection than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3.5 vs. 5, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Perceived ability of radiologists for image interpretation in DM was affected not only by image acquisition-related issues but also by image post-processing issues, and some of those issues affected calcification cases more than soft tissue cases. KEY POINTS • Lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise affected the radiologists' perceived ability to interpret calcification cases more than soft tissue lesion or normal cases. • Post-acquisition image processing-related effects, not only image acquisition-related effects, also impact the perceived ability of radiologists to interpret images and detect lesions. • In addition to current practices, post-acquisition image processing-related effects need to also be considered during the testing and evaluation of digital mammography systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joana Boita
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538, SW, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Ruben E van Engen
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538, SW, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Alistair Mackenzie
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK
| | - Anders Tingberg
- Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Hilde Bosmans
- Department of Imaging and Pathology, Radiology, KUL, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Radiology, Radiology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Anetta Bolejko
- Department of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Sophia Zackrisson
- Department of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Matthew G Wallis
- Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Debra M Ikeda
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Dr, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA
| | - Chantal Van Ongeval
- Department of Radiology, Radiology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ruud Pijnappel
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538, SW, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538, SW, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Ioannis Sechopoulos
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538, SW, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Boita J, Mackenzie A, van Engen RE, Broeders M, Sechopoulos I. Validation of a mammographic image quality modification algorithm using 3D-printed breast phantoms. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2021; 8:033502. [PMID: 34026921 PMCID: PMC8134780 DOI: 10.1117/1.jmi.8.3.033502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2020] [Accepted: 04/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: To validate a previously proposed algorithm that modifies a mammogram to appear as if it was acquired with different technique factors using realistic phantom-based mammograms. Approach: Two digital mammography systems (an indirect- and a direct-detector-based system) were used to acquire realistic mammographic images of five 3D-printed breast phantoms with the technique factors selected by the automatic exposure control and at various other conditions (denoted by the original images). Additional images under other simulated conditions were also acquired: higher or lower tube voltages, different anode/filter combinations, or lower tube current-time products (target images). The signal and noise in the original images were modified to simulate the target images (simulated images). The accuracy of the image modification algorithm was validated by comparing the target and simulated images using the local mean, local standard deviation (SD), local variance, and power spectra (PS) of the image signals. The absolute relative percent error between the target and simulated images for each parameter was calculated at each sub-region of interest (local parameters) and frequency (PS), and then averaged. Results: The local mean signal, local SD, local variance, and PS of the target and simulated images were very similar, with a relative percent error of 5.5%, 3.8%, 7.8%, and 4.4% (indirect system), respectively, and of 3.7%, 3.8%, 7.7%, and 7.5% (direct system), respectively. Conclusions: The algorithm is appropriate for simulating different technique factors. Therefore, it can be used in various studies, for instance to evaluate the impact of technique factors in cancer detection using clinical images.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joana Boita
- Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Alistair Mackenzie
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | | | - Mireille Broeders
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Radboud University Medical Center, Department for Health Evidence, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Ioannis Sechopoulos
- Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Weir A, Schofield KA, McCurrach A. Setting Scottish diagnostic reference levels for mammography incorporating both craniocaudal and oblique projections between 30 and 80 mm. JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION : OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 2021; 41:97-117. [PMID: 33684070 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/abcf8b] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2020] [Accepted: 12/01/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Optimisation must be carried out on all medical radiological units to ensure doses are as low as reasonably practicable, consistent with the intended purpose. To achieve this, population doses must be estimated and diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) set. For mammography examinations, mean glandular doses (MGDs) are calculated for this purpose. The average MGD per unit is compared to the national mammography DRL, which is applicable to compressed breast thicknesses (CBTs) of 50-60 mm for oblique (OB) views only and set using data from screening units. It is the purpose of this work to assess planar MGDs across Scotland and set DRLs based on data collected from all screening and symptomatic units across Scotland, considering craniocaudal (CC) and OB views and a wider range of CBTs. Data from the most recent dose audit (spanning 2015-2017) for 67 mammography x-ray units were collated and analysed (26 195 images). No large differences between MGD of CC and OB views were found when considering specific CBT ranges (median difference 2.6%). There was, however, a significant difference between screening and symptomatic data (19%). As expected, MGD increased with CBT and there were significant differences in MGD between manufacturers. From the data analysed, Scottish DRLs were set based on 95th percentile values for digital mammography units for three CBT ranges (30-49, 50-60 and 61-80 mm): 1.3, 1.8 and 2.6 mGy respectively. These values consider OB and CC views collectively. Fifth percentile values are quoted to highlight units at greater risk of insufficient image quality. These MGD values, together with image quality assessments, will facilitate optimisation across Scotland. Results show that use of different CBT ranges and inclusion of CC views increases the number of images included in dose audit data analysis from approximately 12%-92%, which is substantially more representative of the population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Weir
- Health Physics, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, West House, 1055 Great Western Road, G12 0XH Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - K A Schofield
- Health Facilities Scotland, NHS National Services Scotland, Gyle Square, 1 South Gyle Crescent, EH12 9EB Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - A McCurrach
- Health Facilities Scotland, NHS National Services Scotland, Gyle Square, 1 South Gyle Crescent, EH12 9EB Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Boita J, Bolejko A, Zackrisson S, Wallis MG, Ikeda DM, Van Ongeval C, van Engen RE, Mackenzie A, Tingberg A, Bosmans H, Pijnappel R, Sechopoulos I, Broeders M. Development and content validity evaluation of a candidate instrument to assess image quality in digital mammography: A mixed-method study. Eur J Radiol 2021; 134:109464. [PMID: 33307458 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2020] [Revised: 11/27/2020] [Accepted: 11/30/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop a candidate instrument to assess image quality in digital mammography, by identifying clinically relevant features in images that are affected by lower image quality. METHODS Interviews with fifteen expert breast radiologists from five countries were conducted and analysed by using adapted directed content analysis. During these interviews, 45 mammographic cases, containing 44 lesions (30 cancers, 14 benign findings), and 5 normal cases, were shown with varying image quality. The interviews were performed to identify the structures from breast tissue and lesions relevant for image interpretation, and to investigate how image quality affected the visibility of those structures. The interview findings were used to develop tentative items, which were evaluated in terms of wording, understandability, and ambiguity with expert breast radiologists. The relevance of the tentative items was evaluated using the content validity index (CVI) and modified kappa index (k*). RESULTS Twelve content areas, representing the content of image quality in digital mammography, emerged from the interviews and were converted into 29 tentative items. Fourteen of these items demonstrated excellent CVI ≥ 0.78 (k* > 0.74), one showed good CVI < 0.78 (0.60 ≤ k* ≤ 0.74), while fourteen were of fair or poor CVI < 0.78 (k* ≤ 0.59). In total, nine items were deleted and five were revised or combined resulting in 18 items. CONCLUSIONS By following a mixed-method methodology, a candidate instrument was developed that may be used to characterise the clinically-relevant impact that image quality variations can have on digital mammography.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joana Boita
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Anetta Bolejko
- Department of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Sophia Zackrisson
- Department of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Matthew G Wallis
- Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Debra M Ikeda
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Dr. Stanford, CA, 94305, USA
| | - Chantal Van Ongeval
- Department of Radiology, Radiology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, Leuven, B-3000, Belgium
| | - Ruben E van Engen
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Alistair Mackenzie
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK
| | - Anders Tingberg
- Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Hilde Bosmans
- Department of Radiology, Radiology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, Leuven, B-3000, Belgium; Department of Imaging and Pathology, Radiology, KUL, Herestraat 49, Leuven, B-3000, Belgium
| | - Ruud Pijnappel
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands
| | - Ioannis Sechopoulos
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Halling-Brown MD, Warren LM, Ward D, Lewis E, Mackenzie A, Wallis MG, Wilkinson LS, Given-Wilson RM, McAvinchey R, Young KC. OPTIMAM Mammography Image Database: A Large-Scale Resource of Mammography Images and Clinical Data. Radiol Artif Intell 2021; 3:e200103. [PMID: 33937853 PMCID: PMC8082293 DOI: 10.1148/ryai.2020200103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2020] [Revised: 09/03/2020] [Accepted: 10/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Supplemental material is available for this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark D. Halling-Brown
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Lucy M. Warren
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Dominic Ward
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Emma Lewis
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Alistair Mackenzie
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Matthew G. Wallis
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Louise S. Wilkinson
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Rosalind M. Given-Wilson
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Rita McAvinchey
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| | - Kenneth C. Young
- From the Department of Scientific Computing (M.D.H.B., D.W., E.L.) and National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (L.M.W., A.M., K.C.Y.), Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, England; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (M.D.H.B., E.L.) and Department of Physics (K.C.Y.), University of Surrey, Guildford, England; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.); Oxford Breast Imaging Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England (L.S.W.); Department of Radiology, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England (R.M.G.W.); and Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, England (R.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Dose reduction in mammography by using imaging plate technology: A retrospective analysis. Eur J Radiol 2020; 129:109140. [PMID: 32593077 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/29/2020] [Revised: 06/09/2020] [Accepted: 06/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Conventional mammography is a decisive tool in detecting breast cancer. Continuous efforts are undertaken in order to further improve the image quality as well as to reduce the applied doses. The purpose of our study was to compare diagnostic image quality of dose reduced computed mammography with a new needle-based detector system to full dose powder imaging plates. METHODS We retrospectively compared 360 randomly chosen mammographies performed on a GE Senographe DMR running the Agfa DX-M needle-based imaging plate system (NIP) with their preliminary examinations which were acquired at standard dose with the same GE mammography device and an Agfa CR85-X powdered storage phosphor imaging plate system (PIP). NIP-based mammographies were about 29.8 % dose-reduced. The preliminary examinations had to be performed not earlier than 2 years before the recent investigations. Exclusion criteria were changes in ACR level and appearance of the scored targets and not optimally positioned and exposed mammographies. The images were blinded and read separately twice by 2 mammography experts according to a 3-point score on diagnostic image quality and the visualization of parenchyma, cysts, fibroadenomas, physiologic lymph nodes, solitary microcalcifications and macrocalcifications. RESULTS Dose reduced NIPs showed a significantly better visualization of parenchyma at ACR II/III and solitary microcalcifications at ACR I-III mammographies (p < 0.001) whereas the difference in scoring macrocalcifications, cysts, fibroadenomas and physiologic lymph nodes was not significant. The reading showed an excellent intra- (r = 0.97/0.94) and interobserver agreement (r = 0.92). CONCLUSION With computed mammography using the needle-based detector system a significant dose reduction is possible without loss of diagnostic image quality.
Collapse
|
11
|
Jackson J, Muhogora WE, Makundi IN. CHALLENGES IN CLINICAL PRACTICE OF CR MAMMOGRAPHY IN TANZANIA. RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY 2019; 184:109-115. [PMID: 30445643 DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncy191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2018] [Revised: 10/08/2018] [Accepted: 10/16/2018] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical practice of CR mammography in Tanzania. The equipment performance and operational conditions were studied; and mean glandular dose (DG) estimated to 75 women undergoing diagnosis at three mammography facilities. All mammograms during this study were reported to be useful for the intended diagnosis. The median DG for craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections ranged from 1.27 ± 0.18 mGy to 1.9 ± 0.27 mGy and from 1.3 ± 0.18 mGy to 1.9 ± 0.27 mGy, respectively, and were below the national regulatory guidance of 2.5 mGy. Despite this positive result, unavoidable inappropriate use of beam quality and tube loading settings which could have been through appropriate staff training and performing routine quality control were not uncommon. This work provides an insight of current operational conditions of CR in Tanzania and what strategy should be employed to this service to improve patient care in the country.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jofrey Jackson
- Physics Department, University of Dar es Salaam, Uvumbuzi Road, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| | | | - Ismael N Makundi
- Physics Department, University of Dar es Salaam, Uvumbuzi Road, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Characterization of radiographers' mammography practice in five European countries: a pilot study. Insights Imaging 2019; 10:31. [PMID: 30868292 PMCID: PMC6419669 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-019-0711-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2018] [Accepted: 01/23/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives This pilot study aimed to characterize and compare radiographers’ mammography practice, including quality control and continuous professional development in five European countries. Methods Online survey was performed to collect data regarding participants’ profile, institution’s profile, mammography practice, quality control and continuous professional development. The questionnaire was sent to clinical radiographers working in Estonia, Finland, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland. Descriptive statistical and subgroup analyzes were performed. Results The amount of returned questionnaires was 140. Most respondents were female (92%), having radiography bachelor. The majority (89%) of radiographers was working with full-field digital mammography. The majority (97%) of mammography images were acquired using AEC, and half of the radiographers were using dose saving programmes suggested by the manufacturers. The most typical (50%) compression force ranged from 8 to 11 kg. Part of the radiographers (44%) did not know if their practice followed specific guidelines. The most challenging tasks in mammography identified by radiographers were patient positioning (86%), coping with pain (88%), managing anxiety (83%) and imaging breast implants (71%). The majority (88%) of the respondents undertook continuous professional development activities. Conclusions The mammography practice varies across the five countries. We found country-specific traits related to mammography image acquisition, patient-centered care and quality management procedures. The lack of evidence-based knowledge suggests the importance of well-designed studies on these topics. The variability found in this pilot study encourages radiographers to question their own practice and teachers to review and revise the training programmes. Validation in larger studies including more countries is needed.
Collapse
|
13
|
Strudley CJ, Young KC, Warren LM. Mammography cancer detection: comparison of single 8MP and pair of 5MP reporting monitors. Br J Radiol 2018; 91:20170246. [PMID: 29436850 PMCID: PMC6350498 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170246] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2017] [Revised: 01/31/2018] [Accepted: 02/07/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare breast cancer detection using a single 8MP display with using a standard pair of 5MP monitors. METHODS: An observer study was carried out in which mammograms were read using full field views only, and again with the additional use of magnified quadrant views. Seven observers read 300 cases, one view per breast, using each display type. Cases comprised 100 normal cases and 200 cases with cancers of subtle or very subtle appearance: 100 with malignant calcification clusters and 100 with non-calcified lesions. JAFROC software was used to analyse the results. RESULTS: When mammograms were viewed full field only, observers performed better (p = 0.050) in detecting malignant calcification clusters when using the pair of 5MP monitors compared with a single 8MP monitor. This result became non-significant when results were generalised to a population of readers. Performance in detecting calcification clusters was improved by using quadrant view in addition to full field view when using either the pair of 5MP monitors or the 8MP monitor. There was no significant difference in detection of all types of cancer between the pair of 5MP monitors and the 8MP monitor when quadrant zoom was used. CONCLUSION: Providing quadrant view is used in addition to full field view, there is no significant difference in cancer detection between the 8MP monitor and the pair of 5MP monitors. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Effect of magnification on the detectability of subtle malignant calcification clusters in breast screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cecilia J Strudley
- 1 National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , Guildford , UK
| | - Kenneth C Young
- 1 National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , Guildford , UK
- 2 Department of Physics, University of Surrey , Guildford , UK
| | - Lucy M Warren
- 1 National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , Guildford , UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Bouwman RW, Mackenzie A, van Engen RE, Broeders MJM, Young KC, Dance DR, den Heeten GJ, Veldkamp WJH. Toward image quality assessment in mammography using model observers: Detection of a calcification-like object. Med Phys 2017; 44:5726-5739. [PMID: 28837225 DOI: 10.1002/mp.12532] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2017] [Revised: 07/17/2017] [Accepted: 08/17/2017] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Model observers (MOs) are of interest in the field of medical imaging to assess image quality. However, before procedures using MOs can be proposed in quality control guidelines for mammography systems, we need to know whether MOs are sensitive to changes in image quality and correlations in background structure. Therefore, as a proof of principle, in this study human and model observer (MO) performance are compared for the detection of calcification-like objects using different background structures and image quality levels of unprocessed mammography images. METHOD Three different phantoms, homogeneous polymethyl methacrylate, BR3D slabs with swirled patterns (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA), and a prototype anthropomorphic breast phantom (Institute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Germany) were imaged on an Amulet Innovality (FujiFilm, Tokyo, Japan) mammographic X-ray unit. Because the complexities of the structures of these three phantoms were different and not optimized to match the characteristics of real mammographic images, image processing was not applied in this study. In addition, real mammograms were acquired on the same system. Regions of interest (ROIs) were extracted from each image. In half of the ROIs, a 0.25-mm diameter disk was inserted at four different contrast levels to represent a calcification-like object. Each ROI was then modified, so four image qualities relevant for mammography were simulated. The signal-present and signal-absent ROIs were evaluated by a non-pre-whitening model observer with eye filter (NPWE) and a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) using dense difference of Gaussian channels. The ROIs were also evaluated by human observers in a two alternative forced choice experiment. Detectability results for the human and model observer experiments were correlated using a mixed-effect regression model. Threshold disk contrasts for human and predicted human observer performance based on the NPWE MO and CHO were estimated. RESULTS Global trends in threshold contrast were similar for the different background structures, but absolute contrast threshold levels differed. Contrast thresholds tended to be lower in ROIs from simple phantoms compared with ROIs from real mammographic images. The correlation between human and model observer performance was not affected by the range of image quality levels studied. CONCLUSIONS The correlation between human and model observer performance does not depend on image quality. This is a promising outcome for the use of model observers in image quality analysis and allows for subsequent research toward the development of MO-based quality control procedures and guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ramona W Bouwman
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Alistair Mackenzie
- National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XX, UK
| | - Ruben E van Engen
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Kenneth C Young
- National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XX, UK
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK
| | - David R Dance
- National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XX, UK
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK
| | - Gerard J den Heeten
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter J H Veldkamp
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Mackenzie A, Eales TD, Dunn HL, Yip Braidley M, Dance DR, Young KC. Simulation of images of CDMAM phantom and the estimation of measurement uncertainties of threshold gold thickness. Phys Med 2017; 39:137-146. [PMID: 28647448 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2017] [Revised: 05/23/2017] [Accepted: 06/16/2017] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To demonstrate a method of simulating mammography images of the CDMAM phantom and to investigate the coefficient of variation (CoV) in the threshold gold thickness (tT) measurements associated with use of the phantom. METHODS The noise and sharpness of Hologic Dimensions and GE Essential mammography systems were characterized to provide data for the simulation. The simulation method was validated by comparing the tT results of real and simulated images of the CDMAM phantom for three different doses and the two systems. The detection matrices produced from each of 64 images using CDCOM software were randomly resampled to create 512 sets of 8, 16 and 32 images to estimate the CoV of tT. Sets of simulated images for a range of doses were used to estimate the CoVs for a range of diameters and threshold thicknesses. RESULTS No significant differences were found for tT or the CoV between real and simulated CDMAM images. It was shown that resampling from 256 images was required for estimating the CoV. The CoV was around 4% using 16 images for most of the phantom but is over double that for details near the edge of the phantom. CONCLUSIONS We have demonstrated a method to simulate images of the CDMAM phantom for different systems at a range of doses. We provide data for calculating uncertainties in tT. Any future review of the European guidelines should take into consideration the calculated uncertainties for the 0.1mm detail.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alistair Mackenzie
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK.
| | - Timothy D Eales
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
| | - Hannah L Dunn
- Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
| | - Mary Yip Braidley
- Clinical Trials and Statistical Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London SW7 3RP, UK.
| | - David R Dance
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK; Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
| | - Kenneth C Young
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK; Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Spectrum optimization for computed radiography mammography systems. Phys Med 2016; 32:1034-9. [PMID: 27496197 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.07.635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2015] [Revised: 07/25/2016] [Accepted: 07/28/2016] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Technical quality assurance is a key issue in breast screening protocols. While full-field digital mammography systems produce excellent image quality at low dose, it appears difficult with computed radiography (CR) systems to fulfill the requirements for image quality, and to keep the dose below the limits. However, powder plate CR systems are still widely used, e.g., they represent ∼30% of the devices in the Austrian breast cancer screening program. For these systems the selection of an optimal spectrum is a key issue. METHODS We investigated different anode/filter (A/F) combinations over the clinical range of tube voltages. The figure-of-merit (FOM) to be optimized was squared signal-difference-to-noise ratio divided by glandular dose. Measurements were performed on a Siemens Mammomat 3000 with a Fuji Profect reader (SiFu) and on a GE Senograph DMR with a Carestream reader (GECa). RESULTS For 50mm PMMA the maximum FOM was found with a Mo/Rh spectrum between 27kVp and 29kVp, while with 60mm Mo/Rh at 28kVp (GECa) and W/Rh 25kVp (SiFu) were superior. For 70mm PMMA the Rh/Rh spectrum had a peak at about 31kVp (GECa). FOM increases from 10% to >100% are demonstrated. CONCLUSION Optimization as proposed in this paper can either lead to dose reduction with comparable image quality or image quality improvement if necessary. For systems with limited A/F combinations the choice of tube voltage is of considerable importance. In this work, optimization of AEC parameters such as anode-filter combination and tube potential was demonstrated for mammographic CR systems.
Collapse
|
17
|
Mackenzie A, Warren LM, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM, Cooke J, Dance DR, Chakraborty DP, Halling-Brown MD, Looney PT, Young KC. The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements. Phys Med 2016; 32:568-74. [PMID: 27061872 PMCID: PMC4856544 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2015] [Revised: 02/19/2016] [Accepted: 03/03/2016] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the relationship between image quality measurements and the clinical performance of digital mammographic systems. METHODS Mammograms containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions and simulated malignant calcification clusters were adapted to appear as if acquired by four types of detector. Observers searched for suspicious lesions and gave these a malignancy score. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). Images of a CDMAM contrast-detail phantom were adapted to appear as if acquired using the same four detectors as the clinical images. The resultant threshold gold thicknesses were compared to the FoMs using a linear regression model and an F-test was used to find if the gradient of the relationship was significantly non-zero. RESULTS The detectors with the best image quality measurement also had the highest FoM values. The gradient of the inverse relationship between FoMs and threshold gold thickness for the 0.25mm diameter disk was significantly different from zero for calcification clusters (p=0.027), but not for non-calcification lesions (p=0.11). Systems performing just above the minimum image quality level set in the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis resulted in reduced cancer detection rates compared to systems performing at the achievable level. CONCLUSIONS The clinical effectiveness of mammography for the task of detecting calcification clusters was found to be linked to image quality assessment using the CDMAM phantom. The European Guidelines should be reviewed as the current minimum image quality standards may be too low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alistair Mackenzie
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK.
| | - Lucy M Warren
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK.
| | - Matthew G Wallis
- Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.
| | | | - Julie Cooke
- Jarvis Breast Screening and Diagnostic Centre, Guildford, UK.
| | - David R Dance
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK; Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
| | - Dev P Chakraborty
- Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - Mark D Halling-Brown
- Scientific Computing, Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
| | - Padraig T Looney
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK.
| | - Kenneth C Young
- National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|