Literature DB >> 16964880

A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for C-arm mammography tomosynthesis.

Joseph T Rakowski1, Michael J Dennis.   

Abstract

Digital tomosynthesis is an imaging technique to produce a tomographic image from a series of angular digital images in a manner similar to conventional focal plane tomography. Unlike film focal plane tomography, the acquisition of the data in a C-arm geometry causes the image receptor to be positioned at various angles to the reconstruction tomogram. The digital nature of the data allows for input images to be combined into the desired plane with the flexibility of generating tomograms of many separate planes from a single set of input data. Angular datasets were obtained of a low contrast detectability (LCD) phantom and cadaver breast utilizing a Lorad stereotactic biopsy unit with a coupled source and digital detector in a C-arm configuration. Datasets of 9 and 41 low-dose projections were collected over a 30 degrees angular range. Tomographic images were reconstructed using a Backprojection (BP) algorithm, an Iterative Subtraction (IS) algorithm that allows the partial subtraction of out-of-focus planes, and an Algebraic Reconstruction (AR) algorithm. These were compared with single view digital radiographs. The methods' effectiveness at enhancing visibility of an obscured LCD phantom was quantified in terms of the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), and Signal to Background Ratio (SBR), all normalized to the metric value for the single projection image. The methods' effectiveness at removing ghosting artifacts in a cadaver breast was quantified in terms of the Artifact Spread Function (ASF). The technology proved effective at partially removing out of focus structures and enhancing SNR and SBR. The normalized SNR was highest at 4.85 for the obscured LCD phantom, using nine projections and IS algorithm. The normalized SBR was highest at 23.2 for the obscured LCD phantom, using 41 projections and an AR algorithm. The highest normalized metric values occurred with the obscured phantom. This supports the assertion that the greatest value of tomosynthesis is in imaging fibroglandular breasts. The ASF performance was best with the AR technique and nine projections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16964880     DOI: 10.1118/1.2219090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  12 in total

1.  Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-07-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Anniversary paper. Development of x-ray computed tomography: the role of medical physics and AAPM from the 1970s to present.

Authors:  Xiaochuan Pan; Jeffrey Siewerdsen; Patrick J La Riviere; Willi A Kalender
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads.

Authors:  James T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Lynda C Ikejimba; Predrag R Bakic; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Improved targeting accuracy of lung tumor biopsies with scanning-beam digital x-ray tomosynthesis image guidance.

Authors:  Geoff Nelson; Meng Wu; Cameron Hinkel; Ganesh Krishna; Tobias Funk; Jarrett Rosenberg; Rebecca Fahrig
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.

Authors:  F Zanca; C Van Ongeval; F Claus; J Jacobs; R Oyen; H Bosmans
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Contrast detail phantom comparison on a commercially available unit. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Authors:  Marco Bertolini; Andrea Nitrosi; Giovanni Borasi; Andrea Botti; Davide Tassoni; Roberto Sghedoni; Giulio Zuccoli
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 9.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Chest tomosynthesis: technical principles and clinical update.

Authors:  James T Dobbins; H Page McAdams
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-07-18       Impact factor: 3.528

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.