Pilot Study on the Detection of Simulated Lesions Using a 2D and 3D Digital Full-Field Mammography System with a Newly Developed High Resolution Detector Based on Two Shifts of a-Se

Abstract

Purpose: Experimental study of a new system for digital 2D and 3D full-field mammography (FFDM) using a high resolution detector based on two shifts of a-Se. Material and Methods: Images were acquired using the new FFDM system Amulet® (FujiFilm, Tokio, Japan), an a-Se detector (receptor 24 × 30 cm², pixel size 50 µm, memory depth 12 bit, spatial resolution 10 lp/mm, DQE > 0.50). Integrated in the detector is a new method for data transfer, based on optical switch technology. The object of investigation was the Wisconsin Mammographic Random Phantom, Model 152A (Radiation Measurement Inc., Middleton, WI, USA) and the same parameters and exposure data (Tungsten, 100 mAs, 30 kV) were consistently used. We acquired 3 different pairs of images in the c-c and ml planes (2D) and in the c-c and c-c planes with an angle of 4 degrees (3D). Five radiologists experienced in mammography (experience ranging from 3 months to more than 5 years) analyzed the images (monitoring) which had been randomly encoded (random generator) with regard to the recognition of details such as specks of aluminum oxide (200–740 µm), nylon fibers (0.4–1.6 mm) and round lesions/masses (diameters 5–14 mm), using special linear glasses for 3D visualization, and compared the results. Results: A total of 225 correct positive decisions could be detected: we found 222 (98.7 %) correct positive results for 2D and 3D visualization in each case. Conclusion: The results of this phantom study showed the same detection rates for both 2D and 3D imaging using full field digital mammography. Our results must be confirmed in further clinical trials.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Experimentelle Studie mit einem System zur Erstellung digitaler 2-D- resp. 3-D-Vollfeld-Mammografien (FFDM) und einem neu entwickelten hochauflösenden Detektor auf der Basis von 2 Shifts a-Selens. Material und Methode: Die Untersuchungen wurden durchgeführt mit dem FFDM-System Amulet® (FujiFilm, Tokio, Japan): a-Se-Detektor (Rezeptor 24 × 30 cm², Pixelgröße 50 µm, Speichertiefe 12 Bit, Auflösung 10 Lp/mm, DQE > 0,50). Integriert in den Detektor ist eine neue Methode des Datentransfers, basierend auf der Optical Switch Technology. Untersuchungsobjekt war das Wisconsin Mammographic Random Phantom, Model 152 A (Radiation Measurement Inc., Middleton, WI, USA). Es bestanden immer gleiche Untersuchungsparameter und Belichtungsdaten (Wolfram, 100 mAs, 30 kV). Wir fertigten 3 unterschiedliche Bilder (Aufnahmepaare) in c-c und ml Ebene (2-D) resp. in c-c und c-c Ebene mit einem Winkel von plus 4° (3-D) an. Fünf in der Mammografie erfahrene Radiologen (3 Monate bis mehr als 5 Jahre) werteten die zufallsverteilten Bilder (Monitoring) in Hinblick auf die Detektion von Aluminiumoxidpartikeln (200–740 µm), Nylonfäden (0,4–1,6 mm) und Rundherden (Durchmesser 5–14 mm), wobei zur 3-D-Visualisierung eine lineare Polfilterbrille (3-D) verwandt wurde, aus und verglichen die Ergebnisse. Ergebnisse: 225 richtig positive Entscheidungen waren möglich: Wir fanden für die 2-D- und 3-D-Visualisierung jeweils 222 (98,7 %) richtig positive Ergebnisse. Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse dieser Phantomstudie demonstrieren sowohl für die 2-D- als auch 3-D-Bildgebung in der digitalen Vollfeld-Mammografie gleiche Entdeckungsraten. Weitere klinische Studien sind hierzu notwendig.

Key words

breast - breast tumor - mammographic density

Schlüsselwörter

Mamma - Mammakarzinom - mammografische Dichte

• References

• 1 Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2006; 353: 1773-1783
• 2 Diekmann F, Bick U. Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 3086-3092
• 3 Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 2009; 50: 3-14
• 4 Schulz-Wendtland R, Fuchsjäger M, Wacker T et al. Digital mammography: an update. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72: 258-265
• 5 Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Hacker A, Sedlacek S. Contrast-enhanced MRI for early detection and staging of breast cancer: do we need it?. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 70: 184-193
• 6 Ruckhäberle E, Rody A, Kaufmann M. Report of the 32nd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 10–13, 2009. An international scientific symposium for interaction and exchange among basic scientists and clinicians in breast cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 70: 177-183
• 7 Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR 2007; 189: 616-623
• 8 Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2817-2825
• 9 Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR 2008; 190: 865-869
• 10 Smith AP, Rafferty EA, Niklason L. Clinical performance of breast tomosynthesis as a function of radiologist experience level. LNCS 2008; 5116: 61-66
• 11 Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR 2009; 193: 586-591
• 12 Kontos D, Bakic PR, Carton AK et al. Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study. Acad Radiol 2009; 16: 283-298
• 13 Fömvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljunberg O et al. Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiologica 2010; 51: 240-247
• 14 Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 16-24
• 15 Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wenkel E et al. First experiments for the detection of simulated mammographic lesions: Digital full field mammography with a new detector with a double plate of pure selenium. Radiologe 2011; 51: 130-134
• 16 Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Adamietz B et al. Comparison of dignity determination of mammographic microcalcification with two systems for digital full-field mammography with different detector resolution: A retrospective clinical study (n = 50). Radiologe 2011; 51: 126-129
• 17 Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Lell M et al. Phantomstudie zur Detektion simulierter Läsionen an fünf verschiedenen digitalen und einem konventionellen Mammographiesystem. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2004; 176: 1127-1132
• 18 Blendl C, Hermann KP, Mertelmeier T. PAS 1054: Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren für digitale Mammographie-Einrichtungen. Berlin: Beuth Verlag; 2005
• 19 van Engen R, van Woudenberg S, Bosmans H et al. European Protocol for the Quality Control of the physical and technical Aspects of Mammography Screening. In: Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al., eds. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: European Communities; 2006: 157-166
• 20 Carton AK, Bakic P, Ullberg C et al. Development of a physical 3D anthropomorphic breast phantom. Med Phys 2011; 38: 891-896
• 21 Engelken FJ, Sack I, Klatt D et al. Evaluation of tomosynthesis elastography in a breast-mimicking phantom. Eur J Radiol 2011; Jul 1 [epub ahead of print]
• 22 Webb LJ, Samei E, Lo JY et al. Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection. Med Phys 2011; 38: 1972-1980