Computational models of direct and indirect X‐ray breast imaging detectors for in silico trials
Abstract Background To facilitate in silico studies that investigate digital mammography (DM) and breast tomosynthesis (DBT), models replicating the variety in imaging performance of the DM and DBT systems, observed across manufacturers are needed. Purpose The main purpose of this work is to develop generic physics models for direct and indirect detector technology used in commercially available systems, with the goal of making them available open source to manufacturers to further tweak and develop the exact in silico replicas of their systems. Methods We recently reported on an in silico version of the SIEMENS Mammomat Inspiration DM/DBT system using an open‐source GPU‐accelerated Monte Carlo x‐ray imaging simulation code (MC‐GPU). We build on the previous version of the MC‐GPU codes to mimic the imaging performances of two other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved DM/DBT systems, such as Hologic Selenia Dimensions (HSD) and the General Electric Senographe Pristina (GSP) systems. In this work, we developed a hybrid technique to model the optical spread and signal crosstalk observed in the GSP and HSD systems. MC simulations are used to track each x‐ray photon till its first interaction within the x‐ray detector. On the other hand, the signal spread in the x‐ray detectors is modeled using previously developed analytical equations. This approach allows us to preserve the modeling accuracy offered by MC methods in the patient body, while speeding up secondary carrier transport (either electron–hole pairs or optical photons) using analytical equations in the detector. The analytical optical spread model for the indirect detector includes the depth‐dependent spread and collection of optical photons and relies on a pre‐computed set of point response functions that describe the optical spread as a function of depth. To understand the capabilities of the computational x‐ray detector models, we compared image quality metrics like modulation transfer function (MTF), normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS), and detective quantum efficiency (DQE), simulated with our models against measured data. Please note that the purpose of these comparisons with measured data would be to gauge if the model developed as part of this work could replicate commercially used direct and indirect technology in general and not to achieve perfect fits with measured data. Results We found that the simulated image quality metrics such as MTF, NNPS, and DQE were in reasonable agreement with experimental data. To demonstrate the imaging performance of the three DM/DBT systems, we integrated the detector models with the VICTRE pipeline and simulated DM images of a fatty breast model containing a spiculated mass and a calcium oxalate cluster. In general, we found that the images generated using the indirect model appeared more blurred with a different noise texture and contrast as compared to the systems with direct detectors. Conclusions We have presented computational models of three commercially available FDA‐approved DM/DBT systems, which implement both direct and indirect detector technology. The updated versions of the MC‐GPU codes that can be used to replicate three systems are available in open source format through GitHub.