How does a prototype synthetic mammography version compare to current synthetic mammography and to full field digital mammography?

Congress:

ECR 2020

Poster Number:

C-07603

Type:

Scientific Exhibit

Keywords:

Performed at one institution, Not applicable, Retrospective, Tissue characterisation, Quality assurance, Cancer, Physics, Observer performance, Comparative studies, Mammography, Image manipulation / Reconstruction, Digital radiography, Radiation physics, Oncology, Breast

Authors:

C. Van Ongeval¹, L. Cockmartin², S. Postema², R. Prevos², M. Keupers², T. Thywissen², G. Zhang², H. Bosmans²; ¹Leuven/BE , ²Leuven/BE

DOI:

10.26044/ecr2020/C-07603

DOI-Link:

https://dx.doi.org/10.26044/ecr2020/C-07603

Fig. 1: Image of the left breast (FFDM, InsightV1, InsightV2 version), breast density...

Fig. 2: Image of the right breast (FFDM, InsightV1, InsightV2 version), breast density...

Purpose

To compare a prototype version and a current versionof synthetic mammography (SM) to full field digital mammography (FFDM)in terms of clinical image quality , diagnostic accuracy and breast density.

Methods and materials

1. Patient selection and image acquisition Of 184 diagnostic mammography exams, acquired in a combotomo mode (FFDM with digital breast tomosynthesis during one compression) on a Inspiration system with VB6 software (Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim Germany) only the oblique view was selected. Of these 184 exams, 113were normaland 71 contain biopsy proven malignant lesions. All digital breast tomosynthesis cases were reconstructed in two versions of a SM: the current version of SM, InsightV1 a prototype of a new version of SM, InsightV2 2. Image evaluation...

Results

1. Visual grading characteristics Significant better representation of opacities in InsightV2 AUCR1 = 0.70 (0.65-0.76) AUCR2 = 0.60 (0.54-0.67) Better representation of microcalcifications in InsightV1 for R1 but similar to FFDM for R2 AUCR1 = 0.66 (0.61-0.72) AUCR2 = 0.52 (0.46-0.58) Significant better image contrast in InsightV2 compared to InsightV1 for both readers. AUCR1 = 0.89 (0.86-0.93) AUCR2 = 0.94 (0.91-0.96) No significant difference in image sharpness. AUCR1= 0.60 (0.54-0.65) AUCR2 = 0.69 (0.63-0.74) Significant lower noise level. AUCR1 = 0.88 (0.84-0.91) AUCR2 = 0.78...

Conclusion

Clinical image quality improved for InsightV2 compared to InsightV1 (expressed relative to FFDM), enabling significant better representation of opacities (not significant for microcalcifications), better image contrast, less noiseand better density assessment with InsightV2 but without significant impact on the diagnostic accuracy of SM alone.

Personal information and conflict of interest

C. van Ongeval; Leuven/BE - Author at University Hospitals Leuven/BE - Research/Grant Support at Siemens Healthineers - Research/Grant Support at GE L. Cockmartin; Leuven/BE - nothing to disclose S. Postema; Leuven/BE - nothing to disclose R. Prevos; Leuven/BE - nothing to disclose M. Keupers; Leuven/BE - nothing to disclose T. Thywissen; Leuven/BE - nothing to disclose G. Zhang; Leuven/BE - nothing to disclose H. Bosmans; Leuven/BE - Board Member at Qaelum - Research/Grant Support at Agfa - Research/Grant Support at GE - Research/Grant Support at...

References

1 Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investigative Radiology 1992; 27:723-731. 2 Obuchowski NA, Rockette HE. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: an ANOVA approach with dependent observations. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation 1995; 24:285-308. 3 Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS. A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette Methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:1579-1607....