Second Generation Stationary Digital Breast Tomosynthesis System with Faster Scan Time and Wider Angular Span

Overview

Journal Med Phys

Specialty Biophysics

Date 2017 Jun 2

PMID 28569999

Citations 7

Authors

Jabari Calliste

Gongting Wu

Philip E Laganis

Derrek Spronk

Houman Jafari

Kyle Olson

Bo Gao

Yueh Z Lee

Otto Zhou

Jianping Lu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to characterize a new generation stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system with higher tube flux and increased angular span over a first generation system.

Methods: The linear CNT x-ray source was designed, built, and evaluated to determine its performance parameters. The second generation system was then constructed using the CNT x-ray source and a Hologic gantry. Upon construction, test objects and phantoms were used to characterize system resolution as measured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), and artifact spread function (ASF).

Results: The results indicated that the linear CNT x-ray source was capable of stable operation at a tube potential of 49 kVp, and measured focal spot sizes showed source-to-source consistency with a nominal focal spot size of 1.1 mm. After construction, the second generation (Gen 2) system exhibited entrance surface air kerma rates two times greater the previous s-DBT system. System in-plane resolution as measured by the MTF is 7.7 cycles/mm, compared to 6.7 cycles/mm for the Gen 1 system. As expected, an increase in the z-axis depth resolution was observed, with a decrease in the ASF from 4.30 mm to 2.35 mm moving from the Gen 1 system to the Gen 2 system as result of an increased angular span.

Conclusions: The results indicate that the Gen 2 stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system, which has a larger angular span, increased entrance surface air kerma, and faster image acquisition time over the Gen 1 s-DBT system, results in higher resolution images. With the detector operating at full resolution, the Gen 2 s-DBT system can achieve an in-plane resolution of 7.7 cycles per mm, which is better than the current commercial DBT systems today, and may potentially result in better patient diagnosis.

Citing Articles

A simulated comparison of lung tumor target verification using stereoscopic tomosynthesis or radiography.

Hsieh S, Ng L, Cao M, Lee P Med Phys. 2022; 49(5):3041-3052.

PMID: 35319790 PMC: 10471465. DOI: 10.1002/mp.15634.

Visualizing microcalcifications in lumpectomy specimens: an exploration into the clinical potential of carbon nanotube-enabled digital breast tomosynthesis.

Puett C, Gao J, Tucker A, Inscoe C, Hwang M, Kuzmiak C Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2020; 5(4).

PMID: 33304617 PMC: 7725271. DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/ab3320.

Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.

Barca P, Lamastra R, Tucciariello R, Traino A, Marini C, Aringhieri G Phys Eng Sci Med. 2020; 44(1):23-35.

PMID: 33226534 DOI: 10.1007/s13246-020-00948-2.

A prototype Multi-X-ray-source array (MXA) for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Becker A, Hernandez A, Boone J, Schwoebel P Phys Med Biol. 2020; 65(23):235033.

PMID: 33080575 PMC: 8561608. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abc305.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Chong A, Weinstein S, McDonald E, Conant E Radiology. 2019; 292(1):1-14.

PMID: 31084476 PMC: 6604796. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019180760.

References

Li X, Da Z, Liu B . A generic geometric calibration method for tomographic imaging systems with flat-panel detectors--a detailed implementation guide. Med Phys. 2010; 37(7):3844-54. DOI: 10.1118/1.3431996. View

Sechopoulos I . A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys. 2013; 40(1):014302. PMC: 3548896. DOI: 10.1118/1.4770281. View

Nelson J, Wells J, Baker J, Samei E . How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?. Med Phys. 2016; 43(5):2538. DOI: 10.1118/1.4947293. View

Zhao B, Zhou J, Hu Y, Mertelmeier T, Ludwig J, Zhao W . Experimental validation of a three-dimensional linear system model for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2009; 36(1):240-51. PMC: 2673665. DOI: 10.1118/1.3040178. View

Fujita H, Tsai D, Itoh T, Doi K, Morishita J, Ueda K . A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital radiography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1992; 11(1):34-9. DOI: 10.1109/42.126908. View

Hu Y, Zhao B, Zhao W . Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach. Med Phys. 2009; 35(12):5242-52. PMC: 2673612. DOI: 10.1118/1.2996110. View

Tucker A, Calliste J, Gidcumb E, Wu J, Kuzmiak C, Hyun N . Comparison of a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system to magnified 2D mammography using breast tissue specimens. Acad Radiol. 2014; 21(12):1547-52. PMC: 4253877. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.07.009. View

Zhang Y, Chan H, Sahiner B, Wei J, Goodsitt M, Hadjiiski L . A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2006; 33(10):3781-95. PMC: 2728559. DOI: 10.1118/1.2237543. View

Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Stevanin C, Tagliafico G, Martino L . Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol. 2014; 25(1):9-14. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3402-8. View

10.

Tucker A, Lu J, Zhou O . Dependency of image quality on system configuration parameters in a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system. Med Phys. 2013; 40(3):031917. PMC: 3600660. DOI: 10.1118/1.4792296. View

11.

Sechopoulos I, Ghetti C . Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys. 2009; 36(4):1199-207. DOI: 10.1118/1.3090889. View

12.

Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S . Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2015; 26(1):184-90. PMC: 4666282. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3. View

13.

Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S . Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50(10):1799-1807. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.017. View

14.

Park H, Kim Y, Kim H, Choi J, Choi Y . Optimization of the key imaging parameters for detection of microcalcifications in a newly developed digital breast tomosynthesis system. Clin Imaging. 2013; 37(6):993-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2013.06.003. View

15.

Park H, Kim Y, Kim H, Choi Y, Choi J . Optimization of configuration parameters in a newly developed digital breast tomosynthesis system. J Radiat Res. 2013; 55(3):589-99. PMC: 4014153. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrt130. View

16.

Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Castillo M, Garayoa J, Chevalier M . Evaluation of the technical performance of three different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems in the clinical environment. Phys Med. 2016; 32(6):767-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.05.001. View

17.

Qian X, Tucker A, Gidcumb E, Shan J, Yang G, Calderon-Colon X . High resolution stationary digital breast tomosynthesis using distributed carbon nanotube x-ray source array. Med Phys. 2012; 39(4):2090-9. PMC: 3321055. DOI: 10.1118/1.3694667. View

18.

Wu T, Moore R, Rafferty E, Kopans D . A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2004; 31(9):2636-47. DOI: 10.1118/1.1786692. View

19.

Sechopoulos I . A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013; 40(1):014301. PMC: 3548887. DOI: 10.1118/1.4770279. View

20.

Shan J, Tucker A, Lee Y, Heath M, Wang X, Foos D . Stationary chest tomosynthesis using a carbon nanotube x-ray source array: a feasibility study. Phys Med Biol. 2014; 60(1):81-100. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/1/81. View