Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a limited‐angle tomographic breast imaging modality that can be used for breast cancer screening in conjunction with full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) or synthetic mammography (SM). Currently, there are five commercial DBT systems that have been approved by the U.S. FDA for breast cancer screening, all varying greatly in design and imaging protocol. Because the systems are different in technical specifications, there is a need for a quantitative approach for assessing them. In this study, the DBT systems are assessed using a novel methodology with an inkjet‐printed anthropomorphic phantom and four alternative forced choice (4AFC) study scheme.
Method
A breast phantom was fabricated using inkjet printing and parchment paper. The phantom contained 5‐mm spiculated masses fabricated with potassium iodide (KI)‐doped ink and microcalcifications (MCs) made with calcium hydroxyapatite. Images of the phantom were acquired on all five systems with DBT, FFDM, and SM modalities where available using beam settings under automatic exposure control. A 4AFC study was conducted to assess reader performance with each signal under each modality. Statistical analysis was performed on the data to determine proportion correct (PC), standard deviations, and levels of significance.
Results
For masses, overall detection was highest with DBT. The difference in PC was statistically significant between DBT and SM for most systems. A relationship was observed between increasing PC and greater gantry span. For MCs, performance was highest with DBT and FFDM compared to SM. The difference between PC of DBT and PC of SM was statistically significant for all manufacturers.
Conclusions
This methodology represents a novel approach for evaluating systems. This study is the first of its kind to use an inkjet‐printed anthropomorphic phantom with realistic signals to assess performance of clinical DBT imaging systems.
Ikejimba, Lynda C., et al. "Assessment of task‐based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom." Medical Physics, vol. 48, no. 3, Jan. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14568
Ikejimba, Lynda C., Salad, Jesse, Graff, Christian G., Goodsitt, Mitchell, Chan, Heang‐Ping, Huang, Hailiang, Zhao, Wei, Ghammraoui, Bahaa, Lo, Joseph Y., & Glick, Stephen J. (2021). Assessment of task‐based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Medical Physics, 48(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14568
Ikejimba, Lynda C., Salad, Jesse, Graff, Christian G., et al., "Assessment of task‐based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom," Medical Physics 48, no. 3 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14568
@article{osti_1804834,
author = {Ikejimba, Lynda C. and Salad, Jesse and Graff, Christian G. and Goodsitt, Mitchell and Chan, Heang‐Ping and Huang, Hailiang and Zhao, Wei and Ghammraoui, Bahaa and Lo, Joseph Y. and Glick, Stephen J.},
title = {Assessment of task‐based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom},
annote = { Purpose Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a limited‐angle tomographic breast imaging modality that can be used for breast cancer screening in conjunction with full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) or synthetic mammography (SM). Currently, there are five commercial DBT systems that have been approved by the U.S. FDA for breast cancer screening, all varying greatly in design and imaging protocol. Because the systems are different in technical specifications, there is a need for a quantitative approach for assessing them. In this study, the DBT systems are assessed using a novel methodology with an inkjet‐printed anthropomorphic phantom and four alternative forced choice (4AFC) study scheme. Method A breast phantom was fabricated using inkjet printing and parchment paper. The phantom contained 5‐mm spiculated masses fabricated with potassium iodide (KI)‐doped ink and microcalcifications (MCs) made with calcium hydroxyapatite. Images of the phantom were acquired on all five systems with DBT, FFDM, and SM modalities where available using beam settings under automatic exposure control. A 4AFC study was conducted to assess reader performance with each signal under each modality. Statistical analysis was performed on the data to determine proportion correct (PC), standard deviations, and levels of significance. Results For masses, overall detection was highest with DBT. The difference in PC was statistically significant between DBT and SM for most systems. A relationship was observed between increasing PC and greater gantry span. For MCs, performance was highest with DBT and FFDM compared to SM. The difference between PC of DBT and PC of SM was statistically significant for all manufacturers. Conclusions This methodology represents a novel approach for evaluating systems. This study is the first of its kind to use an inkjet‐printed anthropomorphic phantom with realistic signals to assess performance of clinical DBT imaging systems. },
doi = {10.1002/mp.14568},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1804834},
journal = {Medical Physics},
issn = {ISSN 0094-2405},
number = {3},
volume = {48},
place = {United States},
publisher = {Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)},
year = {2021},
month = {01}}