{"title":"比较数字乳腺 X 光摄影和数字乳腺断层合成系统的纵向硅成像研究。","authors":"Miguel A. Lago, Aldo Badano","doi":"10.1002/mp.17571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>In silico clinical trials are becoming more sophisticated and allow for realistic assessment and comparisons of medical image system models. These fully computational models enable fast and affordable trial designs that can closely capture trends seen on real clinical trials.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate three breast imaging system models for digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a fully-in-silico longitudinal study.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We developed in silico models for three different breast imaging systems by modeling relevant characteristics such as detector technology, pixel size, number of projections, and angular span. We use a computational image reader to detect masses at different growing stages to compute the relative system performance. Similarly, we compare calcification cluster detectability across systems. The Detectability area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated for each combination of breast density, device model, lesion size and type, and search area. We compared the absolute and relative AUC values for DM and DBT. The trial consisted of 45 000 simulated images corresponding to 750 virtual digital patient models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We observed proportional AUC values with increasing mass size. On the other hand, higher breast densities showed lower AUC values. For masses, we found significant performance differences between device models. The highest average AUC difference between DBT and DM was 0.109, benefiting DBT. For calcifications, DM showed higher performance than DBT, especially in highly dense breasts. The highest AUC difference on a model was –0.055, benefiting DM.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In this fully-in-silico imaging trial, we compared three imaging systems with different detector technologies on the same cohort of virtual digital patient models. We found that breast device systems can lead to visibility differences in masses and calcifications. Our longitudinal, multi-device in silico study was possible because of the versatility and flexibility of in silico methods. This study shows the advantages of this in silico methodology in lowering the resources needed for device development, optimization, and regulatory evaluation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18384,"journal":{"name":"Medical physics","volume":"52 3","pages":"1960-1968"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Longitudinal in silico imaging study comparing digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis systems\",\"authors\":\"Miguel A. Lago, Aldo Badano\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mp.17571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>In silico clinical trials are becoming more sophisticated and allow for realistic assessment and comparisons of medical image system models. These fully computational models enable fast and affordable trial designs that can closely capture trends seen on real clinical trials.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate three breast imaging system models for digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a fully-in-silico longitudinal study.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We developed in silico models for three different breast imaging systems by modeling relevant characteristics such as detector technology, pixel size, number of projections, and angular span. We use a computational image reader to detect masses at different growing stages to compute the relative system performance. Similarly, we compare calcification cluster detectability across systems. The Detectability area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated for each combination of breast density, device model, lesion size and type, and search area. We compared the absolute and relative AUC values for DM and DBT. The trial consisted of 45 000 simulated images corresponding to 750 virtual digital patient models.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We observed proportional AUC values with increasing mass size. On the other hand, higher breast densities showed lower AUC values. For masses, we found significant performance differences between device models. The highest average AUC difference between DBT and DM was 0.109, benefiting DBT. For calcifications, DM showed higher performance than DBT, especially in highly dense breasts. The highest AUC difference on a model was –0.055, benefiting DM.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this fully-in-silico imaging trial, we compared three imaging systems with different detector technologies on the same cohort of virtual digital patient models. We found that breast device systems can lead to visibility differences in masses and calcifications. Our longitudinal, multi-device in silico study was possible because of the versatility and flexibility of in silico methods. This study shows the advantages of this in silico methodology in lowering the resources needed for device development, optimization, and regulatory evaluation.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical physics\",\"volume\":\"52 3\",\"pages\":\"1960-1968\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17571\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17571","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Longitudinal in silico imaging study comparing digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis systems
Background
In silico clinical trials are becoming more sophisticated and allow for realistic assessment and comparisons of medical image system models. These fully computational models enable fast and affordable trial designs that can closely capture trends seen on real clinical trials.
Purpose
To evaluate three breast imaging system models for digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a fully-in-silico longitudinal study.
Methods
We developed in silico models for three different breast imaging systems by modeling relevant characteristics such as detector technology, pixel size, number of projections, and angular span. We use a computational image reader to detect masses at different growing stages to compute the relative system performance. Similarly, we compare calcification cluster detectability across systems. The Detectability area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated for each combination of breast density, device model, lesion size and type, and search area. We compared the absolute and relative AUC values for DM and DBT. The trial consisted of 45 000 simulated images corresponding to 750 virtual digital patient models.
Results
We observed proportional AUC values with increasing mass size. On the other hand, higher breast densities showed lower AUC values. For masses, we found significant performance differences between device models. The highest average AUC difference between DBT and DM was 0.109, benefiting DBT. For calcifications, DM showed higher performance than DBT, especially in highly dense breasts. The highest AUC difference on a model was –0.055, benefiting DM.
Conclusions
In this fully-in-silico imaging trial, we compared three imaging systems with different detector technologies on the same cohort of virtual digital patient models. We found that breast device systems can lead to visibility differences in masses and calcifications. Our longitudinal, multi-device in silico study was possible because of the versatility and flexibility of in silico methods. This study shows the advantages of this in silico methodology in lowering the resources needed for device development, optimization, and regulatory evaluation.
期刊介绍:
Medical Physics publishes original, high impact physics, imaging science, and engineering research that advances patient diagnosis and therapy through contributions in 1) Basic science developments with high potential for clinical translation 2) Clinical applications of cutting edge engineering and physics innovations 3) Broadly applicable and innovative clinical physics developments
Medical Physics is a journal of global scope and reach. By publishing in Medical Physics your research will reach an international, multidisciplinary audience including practicing medical physicists as well as physics- and engineering based translational scientists. We work closely with authors of promising articles to improve their quality.