Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications

Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To summarise and compare the performance of magnification mammography and digital zoom utilising a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system in the detection and diagnosis of microcalcifications.

METHODS

We ran an extended search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Engineering Village and Web of Science. Diagnostic test studies, experimental breast phantom studies and a Monte Carlo phantom study were included. A narrative approach was selected to summarise and compare findings regarding the detection of microcalcifications, while a hierarchical model with bivariate analysis was used for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing microcalcifications.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Phantom studies suggested that the size of microcalcifications, magnification or zoom factor, exposure factors and detector technology determine whether digital zoom is equivalent to magnification mammography in the detection of microcalcifications. Pooled sensitivity for magnification and zoom calculated from the diagnostic test studies was 0.93 (95% CI 0.84-0.97) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-0.94), respectively. Pooled specificity was 0.55 (95% CI 0.51-0.58) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.50-0.62), respectively. The differences between the sensitivities and specificities were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital zoom may be equivalent to magnification mammography. Diagnostic test studies and phantom studies using newer detector technology would contribute additional knowledge on this topic.

KEY POINTS

• The performance of digital zoom is comparable to magnification for detecting microcalcifications when newer detector technology and optimised imaging procedures are utilised. • The accuracy of digital zoom appears equivalent to geometric magnification in diagnosing microcalcifications.

Deep Synthesis of Realistic Medical Images: A Novel Tool in Clinical Research and Training

Making clinical decisions based on medical images is fundamentally an exercise in statistical decision-making. This is because in this case, the decision-maker must distinguish between image features that are clinically diagnostic (i.e., signal) from a large amount of non-diagnostic features. (i.e., noise). To perform this task, the decision-maker must have learned the underlying statistical distributions of the signal and noise to begin with. The same is true for machine learning algorithms that perform a given diagnostic task. In order to train and test human experts or expert machine systems in any diagnostic or analytical task, it is advisable to use large sets of images, so as to capture the underlying statistical distributions adequately. Large numbers of images are also useful in clinical and scientific research about the underlying diagnostic process, which remains poorly understood. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to obtain medical images of given specific descriptions in sufficiently large numbers. This represents a significant barrier to progress in the arenas of clinical care, education, and research. Here we describe a novel methodology that helps overcome this barrier. This method leverages the burgeoning technologies of deep learning (DL) and deep synthesis (DS) to synthesize medical images de novo. We provide a proof-of-principle of this approach using mammograms as an illustrative case. During the initial, prerequisite DL phase of the study, we trained a publicly available deep learning neural network (DNN), using open-sourced, radiologically vetted mammograms as labeled examples. During the subsequent DS phase of the study, the fully trained DNN was made to synthesize, de novo, images that capture the image statistics of a given input image. The resulting images indicated that our DNN was able to faithfully capture the image statistics of visually diverse sets of mammograms. We also briefly outline rigorous psychophysical testing methods to measure the extent to which synthesized mammography were sufficiently alike their original counterparts to human experts. These tests reveal that mammography experts fail to distinguish synthesized mammograms from their original counterparts at a statistically significant level, suggesting that the synthesized images were sufficiently realistic. Taken together, these results demonstrate that deep synthesis has the potential to be impactful in all fields in which medical images play a key role, most notably in radiology and pathology.

Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography

BACKGROUND

Magnification mammography is performed to enhance the visibility of small structures at the expense of relatively high radiation dose as a complementary examination to standard mammography. The introduction of post-processing capabilities and the widespread use of digital mammography has promoted some controversy in the last decade on whether similar visibility can be achieved using electronic zoom. The aim of this study is to compare the visibility of small structures in images obtained by the two techniques stated above for different exposure conditions.

METHODS

Images of a Fluke Biomedical Model 18-220 Mammography Accreditation Phantom were obtained using standard techniques and geometric magnification, using a digital mammography unit, with different exposure factors. Three different target/filter combinations (Mo/Mo,Mo/Rh,Rh/Rh), variable kVp (26-32), and automatic exposure control were used. Images obtained using standard technique were electronically zoomed and compared to the corresponding magnification mammograms. Comparisons were based on the visibility of structures evaluated by five senior technologist with extensive experience in mammography. Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

Visibility of structures was not affected by the kV used for a given target/filter combination for both techniques (p > 0.065). Target/filter combination of Mo/Mo provided better visibility of micro-calcification and fibers (p < 0.026) in geometric magnification technique and Mo/Rh in the digital zoom technique. No significant differences were observed in the visibility of simulated breast masses. The overall image score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for geometric magnification over the digital zoom for Mo/Mo & Rh/Rh combinations.

CONCLUSION

Although sufficient image quality was maintained in electronically zoomed images, geometric magnification provided better overall visualization of structures in the phantom.

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology, Specimen Radiography System (SRS) and Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Can Optimise Surgical Therapy?

Aim: This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions using CMOS technology, a specimen radiography system (SRS) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to a conventional full field digital mammography (FFDM) system. Material and Method: Between 12/2012 and 2/2013 50 patients were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS™ 5). After histological verification, all patients underwent breast-conserving therapy with intraoperative imaging using 4 different systems and differing magnifications: 1. Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 lp/mm; 2. BioVision™ (Bioptics, Tucson, AZ, USA), CMOS technology, photodiode array, flat panel, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 50 µm pixel pitch, 12 lp/mm; 3. the Trident™ specimen radiography system (SRS) (Hologic, Bedford, MA, USA), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 70 µm pixel pitch, 7.1 lp/mm; 4. tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 lp/mm, angular range 50 degrees, 25 projections, scan time > 20 s, geometry: uniform scanning, reconstruction: filtered back projection. The 600 radiographs were prospectively shown to 3 radiologists. Results: Of the 50 patients with histologically proven breast cancer (BI-RADS™ 6), 39 patients required no further surgical therapy (re-excision) after breast-conserving surgery. A retrospective analysis (n = 11) showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase of sensitivity with the BioVision™, the Trident™ and tomosynthesis compared to the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0 : 2.0 or 1.0 : 1.0 (tomosynthesis) (2.6, 3.3 or 3.6 %), i.e. re-excision would not have been necessary in 2, 3 or 4 patients, respectively, compared to findings obtained with a standard magnification of 1.0 : 1.0. Conclusion: The sensitivity of the BioVision™, the Trident™ and tomosynthesis was significantly (p < 0.05) higher and the rate of re-excisions was reduced compared to FFDM using a conventional detector at a magnification of 2.0 but without zooming.

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology versus Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Increases the Quality of Intraoperative Imaging?

Aim: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to assess whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions and improve the quality using CMOS technology or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to a conventional FFDM system. Material and Methods: An invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS 5) was diagnosed in 200 patients in the period from 5/2011 to 1/2012. After histological verification, a breast-conserving therapy was performed with intraoperative imaging. Three different imaging systems were used: 1) Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 l/mm as the standard; 2) BioVision™ (Bioptics, Tucson, USA), flat panel photodiode array, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 50 µm pixel pitch, 12 l/mm; 3) Tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 l/mm, range: 50°, 25 projections, scan time > 20 s, geometry: uniform scanning, reconstruction: filtered back projection. The 600 radiograms were prospectively shown to 3 radiologists. Results: Out of a total of 200 patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer (BI-RADS 6) 156 patients required no further operative therapy (re-excision) after breast-conserving therapy. A retrospective analysis (n = 44) showed an increase in sensitivity with tomosynthesis compared to the BioVision™ (CMOS technology) and the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0 : 1.0 of 8 % (p < 0.05), i.e. re-excision would not have been necessary in 16 patients with tomosynthesis. Conclusions: The sensitivity of tomosynthesis for intraoperative radiography is significantly (p < 0.05) higher compared to both CMOS technology and an FFDM system with a conventional detector. Additional studies using higher magnification, e.g. 2.0 : 1.0, but no zooming will be necessary to evaluate the method further.

Use of Tomosynthesis in Intraoperative Digital Specimen Radiography - Is a Reduction of Breast Re-excision Rates Possible?

Aim: A prospective clinical study was done to see whether it is possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared commercial FFDM. Material and Method: Between 1/2011 and 5/2011 we diagnosed an invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS 5) in 100 patients. After histological verification we performed breast-conserving therapy with intraoperative imaging using one of 2 different systems: 1. Tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, Tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm, pixel pitch, 8 l/mm, range: 50°, 25 projections, time for scanning > 20 s, geometry: same scanning scope, reconstruction: filtered back projection; or 2. Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm, pixel pitch, 8 l/mm as the standard. The 100 radiograms obtained with both systems were prospectively shown on a monitor to 3 radiologists. Results: Out of a total of 100 patients with histologically proven breast cancer (BI-RADS 6) no re-excision was necessary in 78 patients. A retrospective analysis (n = 22) demonstrated an increase in sensitivity of tomosynthesis compared to the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0 : 1.0 of 8 % (p < 0.05), i.e., in 8 patients re-excision would not have been necessary with tomosynthesis. Conclusion: Tomosynthesis has a significant higher sensitivity (p < 0.05) compared with a commercial FFDM system. Studies with higher numbers of patients will be necessary to evaluate this method.

A comparison between the electronic magnification (EM) and true magnification (TM) of breast phantom images using a CDMAM phantom

PURPOSE

To provide a comparison between the image quality of electronically magnified (EM) and geometric, or true, magnification (TM) mammographic images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One Computed Radiography (CR), one Digital Radiography (DR) and two screen-film (S-F) imaging systems were investigated. A Contrast-Detail Mammography (CDMAM) phantom was used as a test object. Three contact images and three sets of TM images with a magnification factor of 1.8 were taken on all systems. Software was used to zoom the contact images by a factor of 1.8 to produce EM images. Two observers evaluated all of the images. An Image Quality Figure and contrast detail curve were used to analyze the observer data and Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed to determine the statistical significance of the results.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between soft copy and hard copy for any imaging modality. No significant difference in contrast detail detectability (CDD) was seen between EM images from the two digital systems and TM images on S-F systems. The results for the DR EM images and S-F TM images also showed no differences. The CDD of DR TM images was significantly better than both EM and S-F TM images.

CONCLUSION

Digitally zoomed images offer the same level of CDD as S-F TM images, and so may be viably used in their place. DR systems offer greater CDD than conventional S-F images, when comparing the TM images. This implies that doses can be greatly reduced for TM views using DR systems, while maintaining acceptable image quality.

Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study

Magnification, which is considered to be a relatively high "dose cost" mammographic technique, is a complementary examination performed on women exhibiting breast complaints or abnormalities. Particular attention is given to the imaging procedure as the primary aim is to confirm the existence of suspected abnormalities, despite the additional dose. The introduction of post-processing capabilities and the widespread use of digital mammography promoted some controversy in the last decades on whether electronic zoom performed on the derived initial screening mammogram can effectively replace this technique. This study used Monte Carlo simulation methods to derive simulated screening mammograms produced under several exposure conditions, aiming to electronically magnify and compare them to the corresponding magnification mammograms. Comparison was based on quantitative measurements of image quality, namely contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and spatial resolution. Results demonstrated that CNR was higher for geometric magnification compared to the case of electronic zooming. The percentage difference was higher for lesions of smaller radius and achieved 29% for 0.10 mm details. Although spatial resolution is maintained high in the zoomed images, when investigating microcalcifications of 0.05 mm radius or less, only with geometric magnification can they be visualised.

[Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography]

PURPOSE

With the advent of digital mammography with electronic zoom capabilities, we have sought to determine the need for geometric magnification for the evaluation of clusters of microcalcifications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight clusters of microcalcifications were reviewed by two experienced radiologists using electronic zoom (ZOOM) and geometric magnification (MAG). The following criteria were evaluated: image quality, shape and number of microcalcifications, size and shape of the clusters. The clusters were classified based on malignancy risk using the BI-RADS criteria. Histological results from macrobiopsy or surgery as well as 2 year follow-up were used as reference for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Sensitivity (100% for MAG and 90% for ZOOM), specificity (52% versus 39%), positive predictive value (51% versus 44%) and negative predictive value (100% versus 88%) were superior for geometric magnification compared to electronic zoom irrespective of the reviewer but without reaching statistical significance. However, image quality was significantly superior with geometric magnification (p<<0.05). In addition, reviewers were more confident in their interpretation of geometric magnification images.

CONCLUSION

Geometric magnification remains necessary in routine clinical practice for the characterization of microcalcifications and BI-RADS classification.