Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Acquisitions Research Articles

Estimation of the absorbed dose in simultaneous digital breast tomosynthesis and mechanical imaging.

Use of mechanical imaging (MI) as complementary to digital mammography (DM), or in simultaneous digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and MI - DBTMI, has demonstrated the potential to increase the specificity of breast cancer screening and reduce unnecessary biopsies compared with DM. The aim of this study is to investigate the increase in the radiation dose due to the presence of an MI sensor during simultaneous image acquisition when automatic exposure control is used. A radiation dose study was conducted on clinically available breast imaging systems with and without an MI sensor present. Our estimations were based on three approaches. In the first approach, exposure values were compared in paired clinical DBT and DBTMI acquisitions in 97 women. In the second approach polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantoms of various thicknesses were used, and the average glandular dose (AGD) values were compared. Finally, a rectangular PMMA phantom with a 45mm thickness was used, and the AGD values were estimated based on air kerma measurements with an electronic dosemeter. The relative increase in exposure estimated from digital imaging and communications in medicine headers when using an MI sensor in clinical DBTMI was . For the phantom measurements of various thicknesses of PMMA, the relative increases in the AGD for DM and DBT measurements were, on average, and , respectively. The relative increase in the AGD using the electronic dosemeter was in DM and in DBT. The average difference in dose between the methods was . Our measurements suggest that the use of simultaneous breast radiography and MI increases the AGD by an average of . The increase in dose is within the acceptable values for mammography screening recommended by European guidelines.

Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM

BackgroundAutomatic exposure control (AEC) plays a crucial role in mammography by determining the exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality based on the absorption characteristics of compressed breasts. This study aimed to characterize the behavior of AEC for digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) acquisitions used in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for three mammography systems from two manufacturers.MethodsUsing phantoms simulating various breast thicknesses, 363 studies were acquired using all available AEC modes 165 DM, 132 DBT, and 66 LE-CEM and HE-CEM. AEC behaviors were compared across systems and modalities to assess the impact of different technical components and manufacturers’ strategies on the resulting mean glandular doses (MGDs) and image quality metrics such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).ResultsFor all systems and modalities, AEC increased MGD for increasing phantom thicknesses and decreased CNR. The median MGD values (interquartile ranges) were 1.135 mGy (0.772–1.668) for DM, 1.257 mGy (0.971–1.863) for DBT, 1.280 mGy (0.937–1.878) for LE-CEM, and 0.630 mGy (0.397–0.713) for HE-CEM. Medians CNRs were 14.2 (7.8–20.2) for DM, 4.91 (2.58–7.20) for a single projection in DBT, 11.9 (8.0–18.2) for LE-CEM, and 5.2 (3.6–9.2) for HE-CEM. AECs showed high repeatability, with variations lower than 5% for all modes in DM, DBT, and CEM.ConclusionsThe study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior between systems, modalities, and AEC modes, influenced by technical components and manufacturers’ strategies, with potential implications in radiation dose and image quality in clinical settings.Relevance statementThe study emphasized the central role of automatic exposure control in DM, DBT, and CEM acquisitions and the great variability in dose and image quality among manufacturers and between modalities. Caution is needed when generalizing conclusions about differences across mammography modalities.Key points• AEC plays a crucial role in DM, DBT, and CEM.• AEC determines the “optimal” exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality.• The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior, influenced by differences in technical components and strategies.Graphical

Optimized signal of calcifications in wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis: a virtual imaging trial.

Evaluate microcalcification detectability in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and synthetic 2D mammography (SM) for different acquisition setups using a virtual imaging trial (VIT) approach. Medio-lateral oblique (MLO) DBT acquisitions on eight patients were performed at twice the automatic exposure controlled (AEC) dose. The noise was added to the projections to simulate a given dose trajectory. Virtual microcalcification models were added to a given projection set using an in-house VIT framework. Three setups were evaluated: (1) standard acquisition with 25 projections at AEC dose, (2) 25 projections with a convex dose distribution, and (3) sparse setup with 13 projections, every second one over the angular range. The total scan dose and angular range remained constant. DBT volume reconstruction and synthetic mammography image generation were performed using a Siemens prototype algorithm. Lesion detectability was assessed through a Jackknife-alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) study with six observers. For DBT, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97 ± 0.01 for the standard, 0.95 ± 0.02 for the convex, and 0.89 ± 0.03 for the sparse setup. There was no significant difference between standard and convex dose distributions (p = 0.309). Sparse projections significantly reduced detectability (p = 0.001). Synthetic images had a higher AUC with the convex setup, though not significantly (p = 0.435). DBT required four times more reading time than synthetic mammography. A convex setup did not significantly improve detectability in DBT compared to the standard setup. Synthetic images exhibited a non-significant increase in detectability with the convex setup. Sparse setup significantly reduced detectability in both DBT and synthetic mammography. This virtual imaging trial study allowed the design and efficient testing of different dose distribution trajectories with real mammography images, using a dose-neutral protocol. • In DBT, a convex dose distribution did not increase the detectability of microcalcifications compared to the current standard setup but increased detectability for the SM images. • A sparse setup decreased microcalcification detectability in both DBT and SM images compared to the convex and current clinical setups. • Optimal microcalcification cluster detection in the system studied was achieved using either the standard or convex dose setting, with the default number of projections.

Comparing image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on radiologists' reviews of phantom data.

Previous studies have shown differences in technical image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems. However, quantitative image quality measurements may not necessarily fully reflect the clinical performance of DBT. To study the subjective image quality of five DBT systems manufactured by Fujifilm, GE, Hologic, Planmed, and Siemens using phantom images. A TOR MAM test object with polymethyl methacrylate plates was imaged on five DBT systems from different vendors. Three DBT acquisitions were performed at mean glandular doses of 1.0 mGy, 2.0 mGy, and 3.5 mGy while maintaining a constant phantom set-up. Eight DBT acquisitions with different test plate positions and phantom set-up thicknesses were performed at clinically applied dose levels. Additionally, three conventional two-dimensional mammogram images were acquired with different phantom thicknesses. Six radiologists ranked the systems based on the visibilities of the targets seen in the phantom images. In the DBT acquisitions performed at comparable dose levels, one system differed significantly from all other systems in microcalcification scores. When using site-specific DBT protocols, significant differences were found between the devices for microcalcification, filament, and low-contrast targets. A strong correlation was observed between the reviewer scores and radiation doses in DBT acquisitions, whereas no such correlation was observed in the 2D acquisitions. In DBT acquisitions, dose level was found to be a major factor explaining image quality differences between the systems, regardless of other acquisition parameters. Most DBT systems performed equally well at similar dose levels.

Novel Perlin-based Phantoms Using 3D Models of Compressed Breast Shape and Fractal Noise.

Virtual clinical trials (VCTs) have been used widely to evaluate digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems. VCTs require realistic simulations of the breast anatomy (phantoms) to characterize lesions and to estimate risk of masking cancers. This study introduces the use of Perlin-based phantoms to optimize the acquisition geometry of a novel DBT prototype. These phantoms were developed using a GPU implementation of a novel library called Perlin-CuPy. The breast anatomy is simulated using 3D models under mammography cranio-caudal compression. In total, 240 phantoms were created using compressed breast thickness, chest-wall to nipple distance, and skin thickness that varied in a {[35, 75], [59, 130), [1.0, 2.0]} mm interval, respectively. DBT projections and reconstructions of the phantoms were simulated using two acquisition geometries of our DBT prototype. The performance of both acquisition geometries was compared using breast volume segmentations of the Perlin phantoms. Results show that breast volume estimates are improved with the introduction of posterior-anterior motion of the x-ray source in DBT acquisitions. The breast volume is overestimated in DBT, varying substantially with the acquisition geometry; segmentation errors are more evident for thicker and larger breasts. These results provide additional evidence and suggest that custom acquisition geometries can improve the performance and accuracy in DBT. Perlin phantoms help to identify limitations in acquisition geometries and to optimize the performance of the DBT prototypes.

Accuracy in tumor size measurements: Comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic mammography

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and synthetic mammography (SM) in tumor size measurements compared with histological tumor sizes. Materials and methods71 breast cancer patients who underwent DM and DBT acquisitions simultaneously were included in this study. One radiologist with 8 years of experience in breast imaging measured tumor sizes independently in three separate sessions which include DM, DBT and SM images, respectively. The correlations between the measured tumor sizes on each imaging technique and histological sizes were analyzed using Spearman correlation test. The patients were categorized into two subgroups according to assigned breast density categories (dense and non-dense), and histological tumor sizes (≤2 cm and > 2 cm). To assess the agreement levels between the measured tumor sizes and histological sizes Bland-Altman analyses were performed for each imaging technique. ResultsThe mean of histological size of tumors was 23.85 ± 16.57 mm (median: 20). The means of measured tumor sizes were 21.21 ± 13.59 mm (median: 19), 21.52 ± 13.42 mm (median: 19) and 18.97 ± 11.21 mm (median: 17) in DM, DBT and SM, respectively. The Spearman correlation values with histologic sizes were 0.814 (P < 0.001), 0.887 (P < 0.001), and 0.852 (P < 0.001) for DM, DBT and SM, respectively. In subgroup analyses, the correlation values showed decrement for tumors >2 cm in size compared to tumors ≤2 cm in size. ConclusionDBT provides the most accurate tumor size measurements among mammographic imaging techniques and if mammography will be used in tumor size measurements, DBT should be preferred.

Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation

Background/aimThe Trento screening program transitioned to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening based on evidence that DBT improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography; an evaluation of the transition to DBT is reported in this pilot study. MethodsProspective implementation of DBT screening included women aged ≥50 years who attended the Trento program for biennial screening. DBT screening included DBT acquisitions with synthesized 2D-images. A historical cohort of women who attended the program (January 2013–October 2014) and received digital mammography (DM) provided a comparison group. Independent double-reading (with a third arbitrating read for discordance) was used for DBT and DM screening. Screening outcomes included cancer detection rate (CDR/1000 screens), percentage of screens recalled to assessment (recall%), interval cancer rate (ICR/1000 screens) at 2-year follow-up, and screening sensitivity. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) examined outcomes for DBT versus DM screening. ResultsFrom women aged 50–69 years who accepted an invitation to screening (October 2014–October 2016) 46,343 comprised the DBT-screened group: amongst these 402 BCs (includes 50 ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS)) were detected (CDR 8.67/1000), whereas 205 BCs (includes 33 DCIS) were detected amongst 37,436 DM screens (CDR 5.48/1000) [RR for CDR:1.58 (1.34–1.87)]. Recall% was lower for DBT (2.55%) than DM (3.21%) [RR:0.79 (0.73–0.86)]. Compared to DM, DBT screening increased CDR for stage I-II BC, for all tumour size and grade categories, and for node-negative BC, but did not increase CDR for DCIS. Estimated ICR for DBT was 1.1/1000 whereas ICR for DM was 1.36/1000 [RR:0.81 (0.55–1.19)]. Screening sensitivity was 88.74% for DBT versus 80.08% for DM [RR:1.11 (0.94–1.31)]. ConclusionDBT significantly improved early-detection measures but did not significantly reduce ICR (relative to DM screening), suggesting that it could add benefit as well as adding over-detection in population BC screening.

Comparison of Mass Size Measurements: Synthesized Mammography Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography

To compare mass size measurements between synthesized mammography (SM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and to assess interobserver agreement for those measurements. One hundred and forty-three patients who underwent FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions during the same compression session were included in the study. Two observers with four-and 1-year experience with digital breast tomosynthesis and SM images, respectively, measured mass sizes independently in two different sessions that were 2 weeks apart, and were blinded to each other. The first session included only FFDM images, and the second session included only SM images. Largest dimension of masses was measured in millimeters. Paired t test was used to compare differences in size measurements between FFDM and SM images. Intraclass correlation coefficient test was used to analyze interobserver agreement. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to evaluate agreements between the imaging techniques and between the observers. The mean mass sizes on FFDM and SM images were 20.27 ± 14.10 and 18.50 ± 13.05 mm, respectively, for the first observer and 21.56 ± 14.84 and 19.89 ± 13.68 mm, respectively, for the second observer. The mass size measurements were significantly different between FFDM and SM for both observers (p < 0.001). Range of measurement errors, defined as 95% limits of agreements between two imaging techniques for observers 1 and 2 were ±1.96*1.36 mm, and ±1.96*1.53 mm, respectively. Range of measurement errors, defined as 95% limits of agreements between two observers for SM and FFDM were ±1.96*3.68 mm, and ±1.96*3.35 mm, respectively. The measured mass sizes were significantly smaller on SM than FFDM images, and the interobserver differences for both of the imaging techniques were greater than the differences measured between FFDM and SM images.

Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality

The main purpose was to compare average glandular dose (AGD) for same-compression digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisitions in a population based screening program, with and without breast density stratification, as determined by automatically calculated breast density (Quantra™). Secondary, to compare AGD estimates based on measured breast density, air kerma and half value layer (HVL) to DICOM metadata based estimates. AGD was estimated for 3819 women participating in the screening trial. All received craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of each breasts with paired DM and DBT acquisitions. Exposure parameters were extracted from DICOM metadata. Air kerma and HVL were measured for all beam qualities used to acquire the mammograms. Volumetric breast density was estimated using Quantra™. AGD was estimated using the Dance model. AGD reported directly from the DICOM metadata was also assessed. Mean AGD was 1.74 and 2.10 mGy for DM and DBT, respectively. Mean DBT/DM AGD ratio was 1.24. For fatty breasts: mean AGD was 1.74 and 2.27 mGy for DM and DBT, respectively. For dense breasts: mean AGD was 1.73 and 1.79 mGy, for DM and DBT, respectively. For breasts of similar thickness, dense breasts had higher AGD for DM and similar AGD for DBT. The DBT/DM dose ratio was substantially lower for dense compared to fatty breasts (1.08 versus 1.33). The average c-factor was 1.16. Using previously published polynomials to estimate glandularity from thickness underestimated the c-factor by 5.9% on average. Mean AGD error between estimates based on measurements (air kerma and HVL) versus DICOM header data was 3.8%, but for one mammography unit as high as 7.9%. Mean error of using the AGD value reported in the DICOM header was 10.7 and 13.3%, respectively. Thus, measurement of breast density, radiation dose and beam quality can substantially affect AGD estimates.

Radiation shielding calculation for digital breast tomosynthesis rooms with an updated workload survey

Purpose. To present shielding calculations for clinical digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) rooms with updated workload data from a comprehensive survey and to provide reference shielding data for DBT rooms. Methods. The workload survey was performed from eight clinical DBT (Hologic Selenia Dimensions) rooms at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for the time period between 10/1/2014 and 10/1/2015. Radiation output related information tags from the DICOM header, including mAs, kVp, beam filter material and gantry angle, were extracted from a total of 310 421 clinical DBT acquisitions from the PACS database. DBT workload distributions were determined from the survey data. In combination with previously measured scatter fraction data, unshielded scatter air kerma for each room was calculated. Experiment measurements with a linear-array detector were also performed on representative locations for verification. Necessary shielding material and thickness were determined for all barriers. For the general purpose of DBT room shielding, a set of workload-distribution-specific transmission data and unshielded scatter air kerma values were calculated using the updated workload distribution. Results. The workload distribution for Hologic DBT systems could be simplified by five different kVp/filter combinations for shielding purpose. The survey data showed the predominance of 45° gantry location for medial-lateral-oblique views at MGH. When taking into consideration the non-isotropic scatter fraction distribution together with the gantry angle distribution, accurate and conservative estimate of the unshielded scatter air kerma levels were determined for all eight DBT rooms. Additional shielding was shown to be necessary for two 4.5 cm wood doors. Conclusions. This study provided a detailed workload survey and updated transmission data and unshielded scatter air kerma values for Hologic DBT rooms. Example shielding calculations were presented for clinical DBT rooms.

Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study

To examine the interpretive performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as an adjunct to digital mammography (DM) compared to DM alone in a series of invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs) and to assess whether DBT can be used to characterise ILC. A retrospective, multi-reader study was conducted of 83 mammographic examinations of women with 107 newly diagnosed ILCs ascertained at histology. Consenting women underwent both DM and DBT acquisitions. Twelve radiologists, with varying mammography experience, interpreted DM images alone, reporting lesion location, mammographic features, and malignancy probability using the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 1-5; they then reviewed DBT images in addition to DM, and reported the same parameters. Statistical analyses compared sensitivity, false-positive rates (FPR), and interpretive performance using the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC), for reading with DM versus DM plus DBT. Multi-reader pooled ROC analysis for DM plus DBT yielded AUC=0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.91), which was significantly higher (p<0.0001) than DM alone with AUC=0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86). DBT plus DM significantly increased pooled sensitivity (85%) compared to DM alone (70%; p<0.0001). FPR did not vary significantly with the addition of DBT to DM. Interpreting with DBT (compared to DM alone) increased the correct identification of ILCs depicted as architectural distortions (84% versus 65%, respectively) or as masses (89% versus 70%), increasing interpretive performance for both experienced and less-experienced readers; larger gains in AUC were shown for less-experienced radiologists. Multifocal and/or multicentric and bilateral disease was more frequently identified on DM with DBT. Adding DBT to DM significantly improved the accuracy of mammographic interpretation for ILCs and contributed to characterising disease extent.

Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography.

Our study aim was to assess the radiation dose of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in comparison to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a clinical setting. Two-hundred four patients were consecutively included, of which 236 complementary DBT and FFDM examinations were available. All acquisitions were performed on a single commercially available mammography system capable of FFDM and DBT acquisitions using an antiscatter grid. The average glandular dose (AGD) was calculated for each examination using the Dance method. For this, tube output and half-value layer were measured, and the required exposure parameters (target/filter material, tube voltage, tube load, compressed breast thickness) were retrieved from the DICOM metadata. The DBT and FFDM AGD values were pairwise tested, and a subanalysis with respect to breast thickness was performed. The mean (SD) AGD values for a single-view DBT and FFDM were 1.49 (0.36) mGy and 1.62 (0.55) mGy, respectively, which are small but statistically significant differences. This difference may be partially attributed to the small difference in the mean breast thickness between FFDM and DBT (3 mm). In this patient population, the AGD was lower for DBT than for FFDM in 61% of the patients. When patients were categorized according to breast thickness, the AGD of DBT was only significantly smaller than the AGD of FFDM for breast thickness categories larger than 50 mm, indicating that the dose reduction for DBT compared with FFDM was more pronounced in thick breasts. The radiation dose of patients undergoing a single-view DBT was comparable to a single-view FFDM. For patients with thicker breasts, the radiation dose of DBT was slightly lower than FFDM.

Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.

Due to its capability to more accurately detect deep lesions inside the breast by removing the effect of overlying anatomy, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has the potential to replace the standard mammography technique in clinical screening exams. However, the European Guidelines for DBT dosimetry are still a work in progress and there are little data available on organ doses other than to the breast. It is, therefore, of great importance to assess the dosimetric performance of DBT with respect to the one obtained with standard digital mammography (DM) systems. The aim of this work is twofold: (i) to study the dosimetric properties of a combined DBT/DM system (MAMMOMAT Inspiration Siemens(®)) for a tungsten/rhodium (W/Rh) anode/filter combination and (ii) to evaluate organs doses during a DBT examination. For the first task, measurements were performed in manual and automatic exposure control (AEC) modes, using two homogeneous breast phantoms: a PMMA slab phantom and a 4 cm thick breast-shaped rigid phantom, with 50% of glandular tissue in its composition. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed using Monte Carlo N-Particle eXtended v.2.7.0. A MC model was implemented to mimic DM and DBT acquisitions for a wide range of x-ray spectra (24 -34 kV). This was used to calculate mean glandular dose (MGD) and to compute series of backscatter factors (BSFs) that could be inserted into the DBT dosimetric formalism proposed by Dance et al. Regarding the second aim of the study, the implemented MC model of the clinical equipment, together with a female voxel phantom ("Laura"), was used to calculate organ doses considering a typical DBT acquisition. Results were compared with a standard two-view mammography craniocaudal (CC) acquisition. Considering the AEC mode, the acquisition of a single CC view results in a MGD ranging from 0.53 ± 0.07 mGy to 2.41 ± 0.31 mGy in DM mode and from 0.77 ± 0.11 mGy to 2.28 ± 0.32 mGy in DBT mode. Regarding the BSF, the results achieved may lead to a MGD correction of about 6%, contributing to the improvement of the current guidelines used in these applications. Finally, considering the MC results obtained for the organ dose study, the radiation doses found for the tissues of the body other than the breast were in the range of tens of μSv, and are in part comparable to the ones obtained in standard DM. Nevertheless, in a single DBT examination, some organs (such as lung and thyroid) receive higher doses (of about 9% and 21%, respectively) with respect to the CC DM acquisition. Taking into account an average breast with a thickness of 4.5 cm, the MGDs for DM and DBT acquisitions were below the achievable value (2.0 mGy) defined by the European protocol. Additionally, in the case of a fusion imaging study (DM + DBT), the MGD for a 4.5 cm thick breast is of the order of 1.88 ± 0.36 mGy. Finally, organ dose evaluations underline the need to improve awareness concerning dose estimation of DBT exams for some organs, especially when radiation risk is assessed by using the effective dose.

SU‐C‐116‐05: Using Maximum Intensity Projection in the Evaluation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Phantom Observer Study From the American College of Radiology Imaging Network PA 4006 Trial

Purpose: Characterize the effect of slice level and maximal intensity projection (MIP) slab thickness on image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Methods: Eight ACRIN 4006 PA DBT acquisitions of the ACR Mammography Accreditation Phantom were selected from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (n=4) and Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA (n=4). An experienced medical physicist scored each phantom by first recording scores at single slice levels in increments of increasing depth to confirm the score for each level. Scoring was next repeated with a 40‐mm MIP by identical method. MIP thickness was then decreased in 10‐mm increments and scored again. If a difference in score occurred between 10‐mm MIP slab thickness differences, objects were rescored at the intermediate 5‐mm MIP slab thickness, and so forth. Results: Fiber, speck and mass scores are all sensitive to slice level (single slice) or central slice level (MIP). Specks are the most sensitive. Scores can change substantially if slice level is shifted by one slice when viewing single slices or MIP slabs which are less than 10 mm thick. Scores of fibers and masses decrease with increasing MIP slab thickness, while speck scores do not change substantially. Even when all objects are ostensibly in the MIP volume, their location in the volume affects the score. Scores are degraded when the objects are nearer the top or bottom slice of the MIP slab. Conclusion: In single slice review, slice level substantially affects phantom score, thus care in slice selection is necessary. Increasing MIP slab thickness does not appear to substantially degrade image quality of specks, supporting the clinical practice of using MIP in the review of calcifications. MIP review of phantoms may add value in visualizing artifacts outside the plane of review.

A software‐based x‐ray scatter correction method for breast tomosynthesis

To develop a software-based scatter correction method for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) imaging and investigate its impact on the image quality of tomosynthesis reconstructions of both phantoms and patients. A Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of x-ray scatter, with geometry matching that of the cranio-caudal (CC) view of a DBT clinical prototype, was developed using the Geant4 toolkit and used to generate maps of the scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) of a number of homogeneous standard-shaped breasts of varying sizes. Dimension-matched SPR maps were then deformed and registered to DBT acquisition projections, allowing for the estimation of the primary x-ray signal acquired by the imaging system. Noise filtering of the estimated projections was then performed to reduce the impact of the quantum noise of the x-ray scatter. Three dimensional (3D) reconstruction was then performed using the maximum likelihood-expectation maximization (MLEM) method. This process was tested on acquisitions of a heterogeneous 50∕50 adipose∕glandular tomosynthesis phantom with embedded masses, fibers, and microcalcifications and on acquisitions of patients. The image quality of the reconstructions of the scatter-corrected and uncorrected projections was analyzed by studying the signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), the integral of the signal in each mass lesion (integrated mass signal, IMS), and the modulation transfer function (MTF). The reconstructions of the scatter-corrected projections demonstrated superior image quality. The SDNR of masses embedded in a 5 cm thick tomosynthesis phantom improved 60%-66%, while the SDNR of the smallest mass in an 8 cm thick phantom improved by 59% (p < 0.01). The IMS of the masses in the 5 cm thick phantom also improved by 15%-29%, while the IMS of the masses in the 8 cm thick phantom improved by 26%-62% (p < 0.01). Some embedded microcalcifications in the tomosynthesis phantoms were visible only in the scatter-corrected reconstructions. The visibility of the findings in two patient images was also improved by the application of the scatter correction algorithm. The MTF of the images did not change after application of the scatter correction algorithm, indicating that spatial resolution was not adversely affected. Our software-based scatter correction algorithm exhibits great potential in improving the image quality of DBT acquisitions of both phantoms and patients. The proposed algorithm does not require a time-consuming MC simulation for each specific case to be corrected, making it applicable in the clinical realm.