Premium
Assessment of task‐based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom
Author(s) -
Ikejimba Lynda C.,
Salad Jesse,
Graff Christian G.,
Goodsitt Mitchell,
Chan HeangPing,
Huang Hailiang,
Zhao Wei,
Ghammraoui Bahaa,
Lo Joseph Y.,
Glick Stephen J.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1002/mp.14568
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , mammography , breast imaging , modality (human–computer interaction) , digital mammography , nuclear medicine , digital breast tomosynthesis , breast cancer , artifact (error) , medical physics , computer science , medicine , artificial intelligence , cancer
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.