» Articles » PMID: 29254355

New Reconstruction Algorithm for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Better Image Quality for Humans and Computers

Overview
Journal Acta Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2017 Dec 20
PMID 29254355
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background The image quality of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) volumes depends greatly on the reconstruction algorithm. Purpose To compare two DBT reconstruction algorithms used by the Siemens Mammomat Inspiration system, filtered back projection (FBP), and FBP with iterative optimizations (EMPIRE), using qualitative analysis by human readers and detection performance of machine learning algorithms. Material and Methods Visual grading analysis was performed by four readers specialized in breast imaging who scored 100 cases reconstructed with both algorithms (70 lesions). Scoring (5-point scale: 1 = poor to 5 = excellent quality) was performed on presence of noise and artifacts, visualization of skin-line and Cooper's ligaments, contrast, and image quality, and, when present, lesion visibility. In parallel, a three-dimensional deep-learning convolutional neural network (3D-CNN) was trained (n = 259 patients, 51 positives with BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 calcifications) and tested (n = 46 patients, nine positives), separately with FBP and EMPIRE volumes, to discriminate between samples with and without calcifications. The partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (pAUC) of each 3D-CNN was used for comparison. Results EMPIRE reconstructions showed better contrast (3.23 vs. 3.10, P = 0.010), image quality (3.22 vs. 3.03, P < 0.001), visibility of calcifications (3.53 vs. 3.37, P = 0.053, significant for one reader), and fewer artifacts (3.26 vs. 2.97, P < 0.001). The 3D-CNN-EMPIRE had better performance than 3D-CNN-FBP (pAUC-EMPIRE = 0.880 vs. pAUC-FBP = 0.857; P < 0.001). Conclusion The new algorithm provides DBT volumes with better contrast and image quality, fewer artifacts, and improved visibility of calcifications for human observers, as well as improved detection performance with deep-learning algorithms.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of the flying focal spot technology in a wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis system.

Houbrechts K, Marshall N, Cockmartin L, Bosmans H J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2024; 12(Suppl 1):S13009.

PMID: 39640537 PMC: 11616485. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.12.S1.S13009.


Deep learning, radiomics and radiogenomics applications in the digital breast tomosynthesis: a systematic review.

Hussain S, Lafarga-Osuna Y, Ali M, Naseem U, Ahmed M, Tamez-Pena J BMC Bioinformatics. 2023; 24(1):401.

PMID: 37884877 PMC: 10605943. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-023-05515-6.


Full Wave Inversion and Inverse Scattering in Ultrasound Tomography/Volography.

Wiskin J Adv Exp Med Biol. 2023; 1403:201-237.

PMID: 37495920 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21987-0_10.


A Competition, Benchmark, Code, and Data for Using Artificial Intelligence to Detect Lesions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Konz N, Buda M, Gu H, Saha A, Yang J, Chledowski J JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(2):e230524.

PMID: 36821110 PMC: 9951043. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0524.


Automatic Classification of Simulated Breast Tomosynthesis Whole Images for the Presence of Microcalcification Clusters Using Deep CNNs.

Mota A, Clarkson M, Almeida P, Matela N J Imaging. 2022; 8(9).

PMID: 36135397 PMC: 9503015. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging8090231.


References
1.
Hong A, Rosen E, Soo M, Baker J . BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(4):1260-5. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841260. View

2.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S . Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(7):583-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7. View

3.
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

4.
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

5.
. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012; 380(9855):1778-86. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0. View