Skip to main content

Size and Shape of Spherical Objects on Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 2346 Accesses

Part of the book series: IFMBE Proceedings ((IFMBE,volume 68/1))

Abstract

This study assessed the accuracy of shape and size representation of spherical objects on full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images. Six 5-mm-thick polymethylmethacrylate slabs were positioned on the breast support table with 9 aluminum spherical objects of 30 (± 0.1) mm diameters between the first and second slabs. X-ray imaging was performed using FFDM and DBT (angular range 15°–40°, with correction of magnification), and repeated with the objects placed between the third and fourth slabs, and subsequently between the fifth and sixth slabs. The aspect ratio of the spherical objects and longer diameter were measured to evaluate the shape and size, respectively. A Steel-Dwass test was performed for comparative analysis. A P value <0.05 was considered significant. No significant differences in the aspect ratio of the spherical objects imaged using FFDM, DBT15°, or DBT40° images were observed (overall median: 1.02, overall range: 1.00–1.06). The longer diameter on the FFDM was increasingly magnified (median, range) with increasing distances of 20 mm (32.5, 31.8–33.5 mm) and 40 mm (33.6, 32.9–34.7 mm) between the breast support table and object center. However, in the case of DBT, the longer diameter was approximately the same as that of the actual object (overall, 30.4, 30.0–31.7 mm). At each height, the longer diameter was significantly different between the FFDM and DBT15° images and between the FFDM and DBT40° images (all P = 0.001), with no significant difference in that between the DBT15° and DBT40° images. The size on the FFDM images was magnified as compared to the size of the actual objects, and that on the DBT images was approximately the same as that of the actual objects. Thus, preoperative tumor size determination using FFDM images should be avoided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. James D. Brierley MKG, Christian Wittekind. Union for International Cancer Control. TNM classification of malignant tumours, 8th Edition. UK: Wiley Blackwell; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Flanagan FL, McDermott MB, Barton PT, Pilgram TK, Dehdashti F, Wick MR, et al. Invasive breast cancer: mammographic measurement. Radiology. 1996;199(3):819–23.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O, Svahn T, Timberg P, Tingberg A, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(3):240–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, Rupa JD, Koster D, van Engelshoven JM, et al. Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol Open 2003;48(3):285–92.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, Velasco JM. Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg 2001;182(4):351–4.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pain JA, Ebbs SR, Hern RP, Lowe S, Bradbeer JW. Assessment of breast cancer size: a comparison of methods. Eur J Surg Oncol 1992;18(1):44–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J.P.E.N Pierie CIP, Levert LM, de Hooge P. Clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasonography as methods of measuring the size of breast cancer: a comparison. Breast. 1998;7(5):247–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hidetoshi Yatake .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Ethics declarations

H.Y. disclosed no relevant relationships. Y.S. disclosed no relevant relationships. T.K. disclosed no relevant relationships. Y.T. disclosed no relevant relationships. M.K. Activities related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Activities not related to the present article: employment at Fujifilm Medical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. T.K. disclosed no relevant relationships. R.G. disclosed no relevant relationships. T.G. disclosed no relevant relationships. S.A. disclosed no relevant relationships. M.S. disclosed no relevant relationships. N.T. disclosed no relevant relationships. T.N. disclosed no relevant relationships. H.N. disclosed no relevant relationships.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Yatake, H. et al. (2019). Size and Shape of Spherical Objects on Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images. In: Lhotska, L., Sukupova, L., Lacković, I., Ibbott, G.S. (eds) World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2018. IFMBE Proceedings, vol 68/1. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-9035-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-9035-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-9034-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-9035-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics