Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
Image quality comparison of synthesized two-dimensional images and digital mammography in breast tomosynthesis: A quantitative analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sogabe Kazumi, Maruyama Sho, Koyama Nao, Saito Hiroki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early detection of breast cancer using high-quality mammography is essential for improving prognosis and treatment outcomes. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional mammography (SM) reduces dose and tissue overlap; however, its comprehensive physical evaluations remain limited.
PURPOSE: This study quantitatively compared the image quality of conventional digital mammography (DM) and SM acquired using the AMULET Innovality System.
METHODS: Polymethyl methacrylate, American College of Radiology, and contrast-detail (CD) mammography phantoms were imaged 10 times in both DM and SM modes. Image quality metrics, including signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) maps, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), and CD curves, were evaluated.
RESULTS: DM demonstrated higher SNR uniformity and suppressed low- and high-frequency noise, and the CNR values were 1.3-2 times greater than those of SM across all object sizes. MTF analysis showed superior resolution in DM (MTF(f50), 4.0 cycles/mm) compared with that of the SM (2.5 cycles/mm). CD curve analysis confirmed the better detectability of fine structures in DM, with I Q F i n v $IQ{{F}_{inv}}$ values of 134.9 for DM and 56.7 for SM.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative phantom-based evaluation demonstrated that DM showed superior performance to SM in several physical image quality metrics, including SNR uniformity, noise characteristics, spatial resolution, and contrast-detail detectability. These findings indicate systematic differences in physical image quality between DM and SM; however, further observer and clinical studies are required to clarify how these differences translate to diagnostic performance in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: This study quantitatively compared the image quality of conventional digital mammography (DM) and SM acquired using the AMULET Innovality System.
METHODS: Polymethyl methacrylate, American College of Radiology, and contrast-detail (CD) mammography phantoms were imaged 10 times in both DM and SM modes. Image quality metrics, including signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) maps, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), and CD curves, were evaluated.
RESULTS: DM demonstrated higher SNR uniformity and suppressed low- and high-frequency noise, and the CNR values were 1.3-2 times greater than those of SM across all object sizes. MTF analysis showed superior resolution in DM (MTF(f50), 4.0 cycles/mm) compared with that of the SM (2.5 cycles/mm). CD curve analysis confirmed the better detectability of fine structures in DM, with I Q F i n v $IQ{{F}_{inv}}$ values of 134.9 for DM and 56.7 for SM.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative phantom-based evaluation demonstrated that DM showed superior performance to SM in several physical image quality metrics, including SNR uniformity, noise characteristics, spatial resolution, and contrast-detail detectability. These findings indicate systematic differences in physical image quality between DM and SM; however, further observer and clinical studies are required to clarify how these differences translate to diagnostic performance in clinical practice.