267 Comparison of 2D synthesized mammography versus standard full-field digital mammography: Quantitative and qualitative image analysis. (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stancampiano, C.; Boschiroli, L.; M.Campoleoni, ; Vismara, L.O.
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 56(2018)Supplement 2
• Page Start: 226
• Page End: 227
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.277
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To compare image quality quantitatively and qualitatively of two dimension synthesized mammography (SM) images versus standard full- field digital mammography (FFDM) images in dedicated phantoms. Methods: Two identical Hologic Selenia Dimensions mammography systems were considered, both with a dedicated software for the reconstruction of 2D synthetic images (C-View) from tomosynthesis projections. Analysis was made in terms of spatial resolution, contrast resolution, homogeneity and contrast-detail curve using specific phantoms: TOR MAX (Leeds Test Objects, UK), associated with the automatic analysis system AutoPIA 3.6.6, CDMAM 3.4 (Artinis, NL), associated with the analysis system CDMAM Analysis 1.5.5 (Euref), AGATHA phantom (Leeds Test Objects, UK ), CIRS model 011A (CIRS, USA), a homemade phantom made of 25 aluminium spheres with a 1 mm diameter inserted in a 5 mm thick PMMA slab in a 24 × 24 cm area and 1 mm thick steel edge. The data were analysed with common software packages dedicated to quality control: IQworks, ImageJ, QC-DR and a homemade software. To make the comparison we always used processed images in MG format for both modality. Wherever possible, we used the clinical mode of acquisition (AUTO-Filter). Results: Spatial resolution, both in terms of MTF and cut off resolution, was very different for the two modalities, with a clear superiority of the FFDM images; as to the contrast resolution, however, for the two modalities the difference found is minimal (Fig. 1). The contrast- detail curve again showed the clear superiority of FFDM images (Fig. 2). On SM images the presence of trailing artefacts is evident especially in the tube travel direction, showing a great effect (Fig. 3) Conclusions: This study show a substantial difference in the physical characteristics between SM and FFDM images, the latter showing a much higher resolution. SM images, however, can better highlight smaller objects, like microcalcifications, and actually increase their visualization.