Can compression be reduced for breast tomosynthesis? Monte Carlo study on mass and microcalcification conspicuity in tomosynthesis

Radiology

Volumn 251, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 673-682

  Saunders Jr , Robert S ^a   Samei, Ehsan ^a,b   Lo, Joseph Y ^a,b   Baker, Jay A ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST TUMOR; COMPRESSION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOSYNTHESIS;

ALGORITHMS; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 67049113793     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2521081278     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783. (Pubitemid 41549889)
2. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992;184:613-617.
3. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273:149-154.
4. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205:399-406. (Pubitemid 27467317)
5. Bissonnette M, Hansroul M, Masson E, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. In: Flynn MJ, ed. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2005 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 5745. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005;529-540.
6. Maidment A, Albert M, Thunberg S, et al. Evaluation of a photon-counting breast tomosynthesis imaging system. In: Flynn MJ, ed. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2005 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 5745. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005;572-582.
7. Dobbins JT 3rd, Godfrey DJ. Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:R65-R106.
8. Chan HP, Zhang Y, Roubidoux MA, et al. SU-FF-I-20: digital tomosynthesis mammography (DTM) - dependence of reconstruction image quality on number and angular range of projection views [abstr]. Med Phys 2006;33:2001.
9. Zhao W, Deych R, Dolazza E. Optimization of operational conditions for direct digital mammography detectors for digital tomosynthesis. In: Flynn MJ, ed. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2005 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 5745. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005;1272:-1281.
10. Ren B, Ruth C, Stein J, Smith A, Shaw I, Jing Z. Design and performance of the prototype full field breast tomosynthesis system with selenium based flat panel detector. In: Flynn MJ, ed. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2005 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 5745. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005; 550-561.
11. Glick SJ, Gong X. Optimal spectra for indirect detector breast tomosynthesis. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2006 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 6142. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2006;61421L.
12. Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans D. Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2006 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 6142. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2006;61425E.
13. Rafferty E, Niklason L, Jameson-Meehan L. Breast tomosynthesis: one view or two? [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2006;335.
14. Chawla AS, Samei E, Saunders RS, Lo JY, Baker JA. A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system. Med Phys 2008;35:1337-1345.
15. Gong X, Glick SJ, Liu B, Vedula AA, Thacker S. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. Med Phys 2006;33:1041-1052.
16. Sullivan DC. Measurement of force applied during mammography. Radiology 1991;181:355-357.
17. Sharp PC, Michielutte R, Freimanis R, Cunningham L, Spangler J, Burnette V. Reported pain following mammography screening. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:833-836. (Pubitemid 36438055)
18. Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M, Heard R. Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough? Australas Radiol 2003;47:121-126.
19. Marshall G. A comparative study of reattenders and non-re-attenders for second triennial National Breast Screening Programme appointments. J Public Health 1994;16:79-86. (Pubitemid 24094222)
20. Elwood M, McNoe B, Smith T, Bandaranayake M, Doyle TC. Once is enough: why some women do not continue to participate in a breast cancer screening programme. N Z Med J 1998;111:180-183. (Pubitemid 128473277)
21. Andrews FJ. Pain during mammography: implications for breast screening programmes. Australas Radiol 2001;45:113-117. (Pubitemid 32473005)
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Use of mammograms among women aged ≥40 years: United States, 2000-2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:49-51.
23. Breen N, Cronin KA, Meissner HI, et al. Reported drop in mammography. Cancer 2007;109:2405-2409.
24. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi CJ, Karellas A. Radiation dose to organs and tissues from mammography: Monte Carlo and phantom study. Radiology 2008;246:434-443.
25. Sabol JM, Boone JM. Monte Carlo simulation of photon transport within a hybrid grid-detector system for digital mammography. In: Editor A, Editor B, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 1997 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 3032. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 1997;266-274.
26. Boone JM, Cooper VN 3rd. Scatter/primary in mammography: Monte Carlo validation. Med Phys 2000;27:1818-1831.
27. Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Cooper VN 3rd, Seibert JA. Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results. Med Phys 2000;27:2408-2416.
28. Boone JM. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary X-ray spectra in mammography: computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data. Med Phys 2002;29:869-875. (Pubitemid 34525916)
29. Boone JM, Makarova OV, Zyryanov VN, et al. Development and Monte Carlo analysis of antiscatter grids for mammography. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2002;1:441-447. (Pubitemid 36548520)
30. Boone JM, Seibert JA, Tang CM, Lane SM. Grid and slot scan scatter reduction in mammography: comparison by using Monte Carlo techniques. Radiology 2002;222:519-527. (Pubitemid 34106129)
31. Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson GA. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 2000;73:1056-1067.
32. Dance DR, Day GJ. The computation of scatter in mammography by Monte Carlo methods. Phys Med Biol 1984;29:237-247. (Pubitemid 14059545)
33. Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Phys 2006;33:4221-4235. (Pubitemid 44673112)
34. Sakellaris T, Spyrou G, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Energy, angular and spatial distributions of primary electrons inside photoconducting materials for digital mammography: Monte Carlo simulation studies. Phys Med Biol 2007;52:6439-6460. (Pubitemid 350093173)
35. Koutalonis M, Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Monte Carlo studies on the influence of focal spot size and intensity distribution on spatial resolution in magnification mammography. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:1369-1384. (Pubitemid 351594431)
36. Sechopoulos I, Vedantham S, Suryanarayanan S, D'Orsi CJ, Karellas A. Monte Carlo and phantom study of the radiation dose to the body from dedicated CT of the breast. Radiology 2008;247:98-105.
37. Huang SY, Boone JM, Yang K, Kwan AL, Packard NJ. The effect of skin thickness determined using breast CT on mammographic dosimetry. Med Phys 2008;35:1199-1206.
38. Liu B, Wu T, Moore RH, Kopans DB. Monte Carlo simulation of x-ray scatter based on patient model from digital breast tomosynthesis. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2006 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 6142. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2006;61421N.
39. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi C, Karellas A. Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 2007;34:221-232. (Pubitemid 46035245)
40. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi CJ, Karellas A. Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 2007;34:564-576. (Pubitemid 46185136)
41. Salvat F, Fernandez-Varea JM, Acosta E, Sempau J. PENELOPE: a code system for Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. Paris, France: OECD Publications, 2001.
42. Badano A, Sempau J. MANTIS: combined x-ray, electron and optical Monte Carlo simulations of indirect radiation imaging systems. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:1545-1561. (Pubitemid 43332354)
43. Badano A, Kyprianou IS, Sempau J. Anisotropic imaging performance in indirect x-ray imaging detectors. Med Phys 2006;33:2698-2713. (Pubitemid 44154542)
44. Sánchez-Crespo A, Andreo P, Larsson SA. Positron flight in human tissues and its influence on PET image spatial resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:44-51. (Pubitemid 38133540)
45. Cot A, Sempau J, Pareto D, et al. Evaluation of the geometric, scatter, and septal penetration components in fan-beam collimators using Monte Carlo simulation. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2002;49:12-16. (Pubitemid 34658187)
46. Saunders R, Samei E, Badea C, et al. Optimization of dual energy contrast enhanced breast tomosynthesis for improved mammographic lesion detection and diagnosis. In: Hsieh J, Samei E, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2008 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 6913. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2008;69130Y.
47. Saunders RS Jr, Samei E. A Monte Carlo investigation on the impact of scattered radiation on mammographic resolution and noise. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2006 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 6142. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2006;61423A.
48. Zhao W, Zhao B, Fisher PR, Warmoes P, Mertelmeier T, Orman J. Optimization of detector operation and imaging geometry for breast tomosynthesis. In: Hsieh J, Flynn MJ, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2007 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 6510. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2007;65101M.
49. Ay MR, Shahriari M, Sarkar S, Adib M, Zaidi H. Monte carlo simulation of x-ray spectra in diagnostic radiology and mammography using MCNP4C. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:4897-4917. (Pubitemid 39489931)
50. Boone JM, Fewell TR, Jennings RJ. Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. Med Phys 1997;24:1863-1874. (Pubitemid 28013501)
51. Hubbell J, Seltzer SM. Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients. Gaithersburg, Md: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2004.
52. Schweppe J. X-ray attenuation and energy absorption. Champaign, Ill: Wolfram Information Center, 2002.
53. Zhao W, Rowlands JA. X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: feasibility of a flat panel self-scanned detector for digital radiology. Med Phys 1995;22:1595-1604.
54. Fahrig R, Rowlands JA, Martin JY. X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: detective quantum efficiency of photoconductive receptors for digital mammography. Med Phys 1995;22:153-160.
55. Saunders RS, Samei E. The effect of compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys 2008;35:4464-4473.
56. Shorey J. Stochastic simulations for the detection of objects in three dimensional volumes: applications in medical imaging and ocean acoustics - electrical and computer engineering. Durham, NC: Duke University, 2007.
57. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. Bethesda, Md: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1989.
58. Frappart L, Boudeulle M, Boumendil J, et al. Structure and composition of microcalcifications in benign and malignant lesions of the breast: study by light microscopy, transmission and scanning electron microscopy, microprobe analysis, and x-ray diffraction. Hum Pathol 1984;15:880-889. (Pubitemid 15125696)
59. Berger MJ. ESTAR, PSTAR, and ASTAR: computer programs for calculating stoppingpower and ranges for electrons, protons, and helium ions. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1992.
60. Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography. Phys Med Biol 2000;45:801-813. (Pubitemid 30163665)
61. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 2000;45:3225-3240.
62. Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J, et al. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 1997;42:651-671. (Pubitemid 27195899)
63. Ruschin M, Timberg P, Båth M, et al. Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. Med Phys 2007;34:400-407. (Pubitemid 46185118)
64. Jamal N, Ng KH, McLean D. A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. Br J Radiol 2003;76:238-245. (Pubitemid 36582068)
65. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, et al. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial. I. Med Phys 2006;33:719-736.
66. Mertelmeier T, Orman J, Haerer W, Dudam MK. Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2006 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 6142. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2006;61420F.
67. Kundel HL, Revesz G. Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1976;126:1233-1238.
68. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
69. Heiberger RM, Holland B. Statistical analysis and data display: an intermediate course with examples in S-plus, R, and SAS. New York, NY: Springer, 2004.
70. Armstrong K, Moye E, Williams S, Berlin JA, Reynolds EE. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:516-526. (Pubitemid 351650561)
71. Dullum JR, Lewis EC, Mayer JA. Rates and correlates of discomfort associated with mammography. Radiology 2000;214:547-552. (Pubitemid 30077717)
72. Jackson VP, Lex AM, Smith DJ. Patient discomfort during screen-film mammography. Radiology 1988;168:421-423. (Pubitemid 18184466)
73. Stomper PC, Kopans DB, Sadowsky NL, et al. Is mammography painful? a multicenter patient survey. Arch Intern Med 1988;148:521-524. (Pubitemid 18085333)
74. Keemers-Gels ME, Groenendijk RP, van den Heuvel JH, Boetes C, Peer PG, Wobbes TH. Pain experienced by women attending breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;60:235-240. (Pubitemid 30440539)
75. Sapir R, Patlas M, Strano SD, Hadas-Halpern I, Cherny NI. Does mammography hurt? J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;25:53-63.