Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection.

PURPOSE: Mammography is known to be one of the most difficult radiographic exams to interpret. Mammography has important limitations, including the superposition of normal tissue that can obscure a mass, chance alignment of normal tissue to mimic a true lesion and the inability to derive volumetric information. It has been shown that stereomammography can overcome these deficiencies by showing that layers of normal tissue lay at different depths. If standard stereomammography (i.e., a single stereoscopic pair consisting of two projection images) can significantly improve lesion detection, how will multiview stereoscopy (MVS), where many projection images are used, compare to mammography? The aim of this study was to assess the relative performance of MVS compared to mammography for breast mass detection. METHODS: The MVS image sets consisted of the 25 raw projection images acquired over an arc of approximately 45 degrees using a Siemens prototype breast tomosynthesis system. The mammograms were acquired using a commercial Siemens FFDM system. The raw data were taken from both of these systems for 27 cases and realistic simulated mass lesions were added to duplicates of the 27 images at the same local contrast. The images with lesions (27 mammography and 27 MVS) and the images without lesions (27 mammography and 27 MVS) were then postprocessed to provide comparable and representative image appearance across the two modalities. All 108 image sets were shown to five full-time breast imaging radiologists in random order on a state-of-the-art stereoscopic display. The observers were asked to give a confidence rating for each image (0 for lesion definitely not present, 100 for lesion definitely present). The ratings were then compiled and processed using ROC and variance analysis. RESULTS: The mean AUC for the five observers was 0.614 +/- 0.055 for mammography and 0.778 +/- 0.052 for multiview stereoscopy. The difference of 0.164 +/- 0.065 was statistically significant with a p-value of 0.0148. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the AUCs and the p-value suggest that multiview stereoscopy has a statistically significant advantage over mammography in the detection of simulated breast masses. This highlights the dominance of anatomical noise compared to quantum noise for breast mass detection. It also shows that significant lesion detection can be achieved with MVS without any of the artifacts associated with tomosynthesis.

Dosimetric Evaluation of Metal Artefact Reduction using Metal Artefact Reduction (MAR) Algorithm and Dual-energy Computed Tomography (CT) Method

Purpose: Computed Tomography (CT) is one of the standard diagnostic imaging modalities for the evaluation of a patient’s medical condition. In comparison to other imaging modalities such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), CT is a fast acquisition imaging device with higher spatial resolution and higher contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for bony structures. CT images are presented through a gray scale of independent values in Hounsfield units (HU). High HU-valued materials represent higher density. High density materials, such as metal, tend to erroneously increase the HU values around it due to reconstruction software limitations. This problem of increased HU values due to metal presence is referred to as metal artefacts. Hip prostheses, dental fillings, aneurysm clips, and spinal clips are a few examples of metal objects that are of clinical relevance. These implants create artefacts such as beam hardening and photon starvation that distort CT images and degrade image quality. This is of great significance because the distortions may cause improper evaluation of images and inaccurate dose calculation in the treatment planning system. Different algorithms are being developed to reduce these artefacts for better image quality for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, very limited information is available about the effect of artefact correction on dose calculation accuracy. This research study evaluates the dosimetric effect of metal artefact reduction algorithms on severe artefacts on CT images. This study uses Gemstone Spectral Imaging (GSI)-based MAR algorithm, projection-based Metal Artefact Reduction (MAR) algorithm, and the Dual-Energy method.

Materials and Methods: The Gemstone Spectral Imaging (GSI)-based and SMART Metal Artefact Reduction (MAR) algorithms are metal artefact reduction protocols embedded in two different CT scanner models by General Electric (GE), and the Dual-Energy Imaging Method was developed at Duke University. All three approaches were applied in this research for dosimetric evaluation on CT images with severe metal artefacts. The first part of the research used a water phantom with four iodine syringes. Two sets of plans, multi-arc plans and single-arc plans, using the Volumetric Modulated Arc therapy (VMAT) technique were designed to avoid or minimize influences from high-density objects. The second part of the research used projection-based MAR Algorithm and the Dual-Energy Method. Calculated Doses (Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Doses) to the planning treatment volume (PTV) were compared and homogeneity index (HI) calculated.

Results: (1) Without the GSI-based MAR application, a percent error between mean dose and the absolute dose ranging from 3.4-5.7% per fraction was observed. In contrast, the error was decreased to a range of 0.09-2.3% per fraction with the GSI-based MAR algorithm. There was a percent difference ranging from 1.7-4.2% per fraction between with and without using the GSI-based MAR algorithm. (2) A range of 0.1-3.2% difference was observed for the maximum dose values, 1.5-10.4% for minimum dose difference, and 1.4-1.7% difference on the mean doses. Homogeneity indexes (HI) ranging from 0.068-0.065 for dual-energy method and 0.063-0.141 with projection-based MAR algorithm were also calculated.

Conclusion: (1) Percent error without using the GSI-based MAR algorithm may deviate as high as 5.7%. This error invalidates the goal of Radiation Therapy to provide a more precise treatment. Thus, GSI-based MAR algorithm was desirable due to its better dose calculation accuracy. (2) Based on direct numerical observation, there was no apparent deviation between the mean doses of different techniques but deviation was evident on the maximum and minimum doses. The HI for the dual-energy method almost achieved the desirable null values. In conclusion, the Dual-Energy method gave better dose calculation accuracy to the planning treatment volume (PTV) for images with metal artefacts than with or without GE MAR Algorithm.