title: A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising breast cancer screening tool that has already begun making inroads into clinical practice. However, there is ongoing debate over how to quantitatively evaluate and optimize these systems, because different definitions of image quality can lead to different optimal design strategies. Powerful and accurate tools are desired to extend our understanding of DBT system optimization and validate published design principles.
  
  
  METHODS
  The authors developed a virtual trial framework for task-specific DBT assessment that uses digital phantoms, open-source x-ray transport codes, and a projection-space, spatial-domain observer model for quantitative system evaluation. The authors considered evaluation of reconstruction algorithms as a separate problem and focused on the information content in the raw, unfiltered projection images. Specifically, the authors investigated the effects of scan angle and number of angular projections on detectability of a small (3 mm diameter) signal embedded in randomly-varying anatomical backgrounds. Detectability was measured by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Experiments were repeated for three test cases where the detectability-limiting factor was anatomical variability, quantum noise, or electronic noise. The authors also juxtaposed the virtual trial framework with other published studies to illustrate its advantages and disadvantages.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The large number of variables in a virtual DBT study make it difficult to directly compare different authors' results, so each result must be interpreted within the context of the specific virtual trial framework. The following results apply to 25% density phantoms with 5.15 cm compressed thickness and 500 μm(3) voxels (larger 500 μm(2) detector pixels were used to avoid voxel-edge artifacts): 1. For raw, unfiltered projection images in the anatomical-variability-limited regime, AUC appeared to remain constant or increase slightly with scan angle. 2. In the same regime, when the authors fixed the scan angle, AUC increased asymptotically with the number of projections. The threshold number of projections for asymptotic AUC performance depended on the scan angle. In the quantum- and electronic-noise dominant regimes, AUC behaviors as a function of scan angle and number of projections sometimes differed from the anatomy-limited regime. For example, with a fixed scan angle, AUC generally decreased with the number of projections in the electronic-noise dominant regime. These results are intended to demonstrate the capabilities of the virtual trial framework, not to be used as optimization rules for DBT.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The authors have demonstrated a novel simulation framework and tools for evaluating DBT systems in an objective, task-specific manner. This framework facilitates further investigation of image quality tradeoffs in DBT.
authors: College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA.
authors: Stefano
authors: S
authors: Young
authors: Predrag R
authors: PR
authors: Bakic
authors: Kyle J
authors: KJ
authors: Myers
authors: Robert J
authors: RJ
authors: Jennings
authors: Subok
authors: S
authors: Park
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000379:methods*; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011786:Quality Control; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods*
references: Med Phys. 2009 Apr;36(4):1199-207
references: 19472626
references: Med Phys. 2012 Apr;39(4):2290-302
references: 22482649
references: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):369-74
references: 15933139
references: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Dec;28(12):1894-901
references: 19435677
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jul;36(7):3122-31
references: 19673211
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jan;36(1):240-51
references: 19235392
references: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):406-9
references: 15933147
references: Phys Med Biol. 2003 Nov 21;48(22):3699-719
references: 14680268
references: Med Phys. 2003 Nov;30(11):3006-17
references: 14655948
references: Med Phys. 2011 Jun;38(6):3165-76
references: 21815391
references: Med Phys. 2007 Nov;34(11):4076-91
references: 18074617
references: Med Phys. 2010 Jun;37(6):2593-605
references: 20632571
references: Med Phys. 2010 Apr;37(4):1591-600
references: 20443480
references: Med Phys. 2004 Nov;31(11):3132-49
references: 15587666
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jun;36(6):1976-84
references: 19610286
references: Med Phys. 2008 Feb;35(2):456-63
references: 18383665
references: Med Phys. 2002 Sep;29(9):2140-51
references: 12349936
references: Cancer. 1989 Jan 1;63(1):181-7
references: 2910416
references: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2003 Sep;20(9):1725-38
references: 12968645
references: Med Phys. 2010 May;37(5):1948-65
references: 20527529
references: Med Phys. 2006 Sep;33(9):3159-64
references: 17022208
references: Med Phys. 2002 Sep;29(9):2131-9
references: 12349935
references: Phys Med Biol. 2009 Mar 21;54(6):1533-53
references: 19229099
references: Acad Radiol. 2011 Oct;18(10):1298-310
references: 21893296
references: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):81-4
references: 15933085
references: Phys Med Biol. 1987 Jun;32(6):675-95
references: 3039542
references: Med Phys. 1997 Jan;24(1):71-89
references: 9029542
references: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2011 Jun 1;28(6):1145-63
references: 21643400
references: Med Phys. 2006 Apr;33(4):1041-52
references: 16696481
references: Med Image Anal. 2011 Feb;15(1):53-70
references: 20713313
references: Phys Med Biol. 2004 Jun 7;49(11):2183-95
references: 15248571
references: Med Phys. 2009 Nov;36(11):4859-69
references: 19994493
references: Med Phys. 2007 Aug;34(8):3385-98
references: 17879801
references: Med Phys. 2009 Dec;36(12):5437-43
references: 20095256
references: Med Phys. 1981 Sep-Oct;8(5):629-39
references: 7290015
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jun;36(6):1956-67
references: 19610284
references: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010 Apr;29(4):1050-8
references: 20335088
references: Radiology. 1979 Feb;130(2):485-91
references: 760167
references: Med Phys. 2011 Nov;38(11):5887-95
references: 22047353