Quantifying the Tibiofemoral Joint Space Using X-ray Tomosynthesis

Purpose: Digital x-ray tomosynthesis (DTS) has the potential to provide 3D information about the knee joint in a load-bearing posture, which may improve diagnosis and monitoring of knee osteoarthritis compared with projection radiography, the current standard of care. Manually quantifying and visualizing the joint space width (JSW) from 3D tomosynthesis datasets may be challenging. This work developed a semiautomated algorithm for quantifying the 3D tibiofemoral JSW from reconstructed DTS images. The algorithm was validated through anthropomorphic phantom experiments and applied to three clinical datasets. Methods: A user-selected volume of interest within the reconstructed DTS volume was enhanced with 1D multiscale gradient kernels. The edge-enhanced volumes were divided by polarity into tibial and femoral edge maps and combined across kernel scales. A 2D connected components algorithm was performed to determine candidate tibial and femoral edges. A 2D joint space width map (JSW) was constructed to represent the 3D tibiofemoral joint space. To quantify the algorithm accuracy, an adjustable knee phantom was constructed, and eleven posterior–anterior (PA) and lateral DTS scans were acquired with the medial minimum JSW of the phantom set to 0–5 mm in 0.5 mm increments (VolumeRadTM, GE Healthcare, Chalfont St. Giles, United Kingdom). The accuracy of the algorithm was quantified by comparing the minimum JSW in a region of interest in the medial compartment of the JSW map to the measured phantom setting for each trial. In addition, the algorithm was applied to DTS scans of a static knee phantom and the JSW map compared to values estimated from a manually segmented computed tomography (CT) dataset. The algorithm was also applied to three clinical DTS datasets of osteoarthritic patients. Results: The algorithm segmented the JSW and generated a JSW map for all phantom and clinical datasets. For the adjustable phantom, the estimated minimum JSW values were plotted against the measured values for all trials. A linear fit estimated a slope of 0.887 (R2¼0.962) and a mean error across all trials of 0.34 mm for the PA phantom data. The estimated minimum JSW values for the lateral adjustable phantom acquisitions were found to have low correlation to the measured values (R2¼0.377), with a mean error of 2.13 mm. The error in the lateral adjustable-phantom datasets appeared to be caused by artifacts due to unrealistic features in the phantom bones. JSW maps generated by DTS and CT varied by a mean of 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm across the knee joint, for PA and lateral scans. The tibial and femoral edges were successfully segmented and JSW maps determined for PA and lateral clinical DTS datasets. Conclusions: A semiautomated method is presented for quantifying the 3D joint space in a 2D JSW map using tomosynthesis images. The proposed algorithm quantified the JSW across the knee joint to sub-millimeter accuracy for PA tomosynthesis acquisitions. Overall, the results suggest that x-ray tomosynthesis may be beneficial for diagnosing and monitoring disease progression or treatment of osteoarthritis by providing quantitative images of JSW in the load-bearing knee

Automatic and standardized quality assurance of digital mammography and tomosynthesis with deep convolutional neural networks

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to develop and validate a commercially available AI platform for the automatic determination of image quality in mammography and tomosynthesis considering a standardized set of features. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this retrospective study, 11,733 mammograms and synthetic 2D reconstructions from tomosynthesis of 4200 patients from two institutions were analyzed by assessing the presence of seven features which impact image quality in regard to breast positioning. Deep learning was applied to train five dCNN models on features detecting the presence of anatomical landmarks and three dCNN models for localization features. The validity of models was assessed by the calculation of the mean squared error in a test dataset and was compared to the reading by experienced radiologists. RESULTS Accuracies of the dCNN models ranged between 93.0% for the nipple visualization and 98.5% for the depiction of the pectoralis muscle in the CC view. Calculations based on regression models allow for precise measurements of distances and angles of breast positioning on mammograms and synthetic 2D reconstructions from tomosynthesis. All models showed almost perfect agreement compared to human reading with Cohen's kappa scores above 0.9. CONCLUSIONS An AI-based quality assessment system using a dCNN allows for precise, consistent and observer-independent rating of digital mammography and synthetic 2D reconstructions from tomosynthesis. Automation and standardization of quality assessment enable real-time feedback to technicians and radiologists that shall reduce a number of inadequate examinations according to PGMI (Perfect, Good, Moderate, Inadequate) criteria, reduce a number of recalls and provide a dependable training platform for inexperienced technicians

Abnormality Detection in Mammography using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. The most common screening technology is mammography. To reduce the cost and workload of radiologists, we propose a computer aided detection approach for classifying and localizing calcifications and masses in mammogram images. To improve on conventional approaches, we apply deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) for automatic feature learning and classifier building. In computer-aided mammography, deep CNN classifiers cannot be trained directly on full mammogram images because of the loss of image details from resizing at input layers. Instead, our classifiers are trained on labelled image patches and then adapted to work on full mammogram images for localizing the abnormalities. State-of-the-art deep convolutional neural networks are compared on their performance of classifying the abnormalities. Experimental results indicate that VGGNet receives the best overall accuracy at 92.53\% in classifications. For localizing abnormalities, ResNet is selected for computing class activation maps because it is ready to be deployed without structural change or further training. Our approach demonstrates that deep convolutional neural network classifiers have remarkable localization capabilities despite no supervision on the location of abnormalities is provided.Comment: 6 page

Image quality of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: Effects of projection-view distributions

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98731/1/MPH005703.pd

Comparison of different image reconstruction algorithms for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and assessment of their potential to reduce radiation dose

Tese de mestrado, Engenharia Física, 2022, Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de CiênciasDigital Breast Tomosynthesis is a three-dimensional medical imaging technique that allows the view of sectional parts of the breast. Obtaining multiple slices of the breast constitutes an advantage in contrast to conventional mammography examination in view of the increased potential in breast cancer detectability. Conventional mammography, despite being a screening success, has undesirable specificity, sensitivity, and high recall rates owing to the overlapping of tissues. Although this new technique promises better diagnostic results, the acquisition methods and image reconstruction algorithms are still under research. Several articles suggest the use of analytic algorithms. However, more recent articles highlight the iterative algorithm’s potential for increasing image quality when compared to the former. The scope of this dissertation was to test the hypothesis of achieving higher quality images using iterative algorithms acquired with lower doses than those using analytic algorithms. In a first stage, the open-source Tomographic Iterative GPU-based Reconstruction (TIGRE) Toolbox for fast and accurate 3D x-ray image reconstruction was used to reconstruct the images acquired using an acrylic phantom. The algorithms used from the toolbox were the Feldkamp, Davis, and Kress, the Simultaneous Algebraic Reconstruction Technique, and the Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization algorithm. In a second and final state, the possibility of further reducing the radiation dose using image postprocessing tools was evaluated. A Total Variation Minimization filter was applied to the images reconstructed with the TIGRE toolbox algorithm that provided the best image quality. These were then compared to the images of the commercial unit used for the image acquisitions. With the use of image quality parameters, it was found that the Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization algorithm performance was the best of the three for lower radiation doses, especially with the filter. In sum, the result showed the potential of the algorithm in obtaining images with quality for low doses

The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a three-dimensional mammography technique with the potential to improve accuracy by improving differentiation between malignant and non-malignant lesions. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of DBT in conjunction with two-dimensional (2D) mammography or synthetic 2D mammography, against standard 2D mammography and to determine if DBT improves the accuracy of detection of different types of lesions. STUDY POPULATION: Women (aged 47-73 years) recalled for further assessment after routine breast screening and women (aged 40-49 years) with moderate/high of risk of developing breast cancer attending annual mammography screening were recruited after giving written informed consent. INTERVENTION: All participants underwent a two-view 2D mammography of both breasts and two-view DBT imaging. Image-processing software generated a synthetic 2D mammogram from the DBT data sets. RETROSPECTIVE READING STUDY: In an independent blinded retrospective study, readers reviewed (1) 2D or (2) 2D + DBT or (3) synthetic 2D + DBT images for each case without access to original screening mammograms or prior examinations. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for each reading arm and by subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Data were available for 7060 subjects comprising 6020 (1158 cancers) assessment cases and 1040 (two cancers) family history screening cases. Overall sensitivity was 87% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85% to 89%] for 2D only, 89% (95% CI 87% to 91%) for 2D + DBT and 88% (95% CI 86% to 90%) for synthetic 2D + DBT. The difference in sensitivity between 2D and 2D + DBT was of borderline significance (p = 0.07) and for synthetic 2D + DBT there was no significant difference (p = 0.6). Specificity was 58% (95% CI 56% to 60%) for 2D, 69% (95% CI 67% to 71%) for 2D + DBT and 71% (95% CI 69% to 73%) for synthetic 2D + DBT. Specificity was significantly higher in both DBT reading arms for all subgroups of age, density and dominant radiological feature (p < 0.001 all cases). In all reading arms, specificity tended to be lower for microcalcifications and higher for distortion/asymmetry. Comparing 2D + DBT to 2D alone, sensitivity was significantly higher: 93% versus 86% (p < 0.001) for invasive tumours of size 11-20 mm. Similarly, for breast density 50% or more, sensitivities were 93% versus 86% (p = 0.03); for grade 2 invasive tumours, sensitivities were 91% versus 87% (p = 0.01); where the dominant radiological feature was a mass, sensitivities were 92% and 89% (p = 0.04) For synthetic 2D + DBT, there was significantly (p = 0.006) higher sensitivity than 2D alone in invasive cancers of size 11-20 mm, with a sensitivity of 91%. CONCLUSIONS: The specificity of DBT and 2D was better than 2D alone but there was only marginal improvement in sensitivity. The performance of synthetic 2D appeared to be comparable to standard 2D. If these results were observed with screening cases, DBT and 2D mammography could benefit to the screening programme by reducing the number of women recalled unnecessarily, especially if a synthetic 2D mammogram were used to minimise radiation exposure. Further research is required into the feasibility of implementing DBT in a screening setting, prognostic modelling on outcomes and mortality, and comparison of 2D and synthetic 2D for different lesion types. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73467396. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 4. See the HTA programme website for further project information.This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 4. See the HTA programme website for further project information.Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA, et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme – a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(4). © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Gilbert et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK