Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to present a brief description of digital tomosynthesis, a three-dimensional (3D) imaging technique that overcomes the problems of conventional two-dimensional (2D) tomography. The technique involves image acquisition, image reconstruction, and image display and communication. While image acquisition is such that the X-ray tube rotates through a limited angle about the detector which is often stationary, to obtain a number of projection data are taken from different angles. These data are subsequently reconstructed to produce individual slices of the volume of tissue scanned, using algorithms specially developed for tomosynthesis. There are two types of designs for image acquisition in digital tomosynthesis: step-and-shoot system and continuous scan system. While, in the former method, the X-ray tube that moves to every angular position stops, an exposure is taken and the tube then moves to the next angular position; in the latter system, the X-ray tube moves during the scanning of the object. Digital tomosynthesis (DT) is being applied to general radiographic imaging and to digital breast imaging referred to as digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).
Major imaging system components include the X-ray tube and housing designed to rotate during the data acquisition, collimation and filtration, breast support, breast compression device, and either a full-field indirect flat-panel digital detector {amorphous silicon (a-Si) cesium iodide (CsI)} or a full-field direct flat-panel digital detector (a-Selenium). Furthermore DT is characterized by several parameters such as the sweep angle, sweep direction, patient barrier-object distance, number of projections, and total radiation dose. Additionally an overview of image reconstruction methods of DT, image display and communication, and radiation dose considerations is presented. Finally, this chapter concludes with an outline of synthesized 2D digital mammography (DM) and clinical applications of DT.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Vallebona A. Radiography with great enlargement (microradiography) and a technical method for radiographic dissociation of the shadow. Radiology. 1931;17:340–1.
Bocage E. M. Patent No. 536, 464, Paris. History of tomography. Medicamundi, 1974; 19: 106–115.
Grant DG. Tomosynthesis: a three-dimensional radiographic imaging technique. IEEE Trans Biomed EngBME. 1972;19:20–8.
Maidment ADA. The future of medical imaging. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2010;139(1–3):3–7.
Machida H, Yuhara T, Mori T, Ueno E, Moribe Y, Sabol JM. Whole-body clinical applications of digital Tomosynthesis. Radiographics. 2010;30:549–62.
Tingberg A. X-ray Tomosynthesis: a review of its use for breast and chest imaging. Radiol Clin N Am. 2010;52:489–97.
Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Digital Tomosynthesis. Technique Radiol Clin North Am. 2014;52:489–97.
Smith A. Fundamentals of breast tomosynthesis. Improving the performance of mammography. White Paper, Bedford, MA. Hologic, Incâ„¢. 2012.
Smith A. Design considerations in optimizing a breast tomosynthesis system. White Paper, Bedford, MA. Hologic, Incâ„¢. 2011.
Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. the image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014301-1–014301-12.
Bushong S. Radiologic science for technologists. 11th ed. St Louis: MO. Elsevier; 2017.
Gomi T. A comparison of reconstruction algorithms regarding exposure dose reductions during digital breast Tomosynthesis. J Biomed Sci Eng. 2014;7:516–25.
Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB. Digital breast Tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art. Radiology. 2015;277:663–84.
Machida H, Yuhara T, Tamura M, Ishikawa T, Tate E, Ueno E, Nye K, Sabol JM. Whole-body clinical applications of digital Tomosynthesis. Radiographics. 2016;36:735–50.
Dobbins JT 3rd, Godfrey DJ. Digital X-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(19):R65–R106.
Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014302.
Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Teuwen J, Vreemann S, Bouwman RW, van Engen RE, Karssemeijer N, Mann RM, Gubern-Merida A, Sechopoulos I. New reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis: better image quality for humans and computers. Acta Radiol. 2017;0(0):1–9.
Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
Gennaro G, Bernardi D, Houssami N. Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(2):573–81.
Alakhras MM, Mello-Thoms C, Bourne R, Rickard M, Diffey J, Brennan PC. Relationship between radiation dose and image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2017;173(I4):351–60.
James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK. Breast radiation dose with CESM compared with 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:2–9.
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:141–50.
Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast. 2015;24(2):93–9.
Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Rofo. 2012;184(10):911–8.
Nelson JS, Wells JR, Baker JA, Samei E. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2538–47.
Skaane P, Bandos A, Eben E. Two-view digital breast Tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast Tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):655–63.
Zuckerman SP, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF. Imaging with synthesized 2D mammography: differences, advantages, and pitfalls compared with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(1):222–9.
Smith A. Synthesized 2D mammographic imaging. White Paper, Bedford, MA. Hologic, Incâ„¢. 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seeram, E. (2019). Digital Tomosynthesis. In: Digital Radiography. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3244-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3244-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3243-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3244-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)