Literature DB >> 17089843

A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis.

Yiheng Zhang1, Heang-Ping Chan, Berkman Sahiner, Jun Wei, Mitchell M Goodsitt, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, Jun Ge, Chuan Zhou.   

Abstract

Digital tomosynthesis mammography (DTM) is a promising new modality for breast cancer detection. In DTM, projection-view images are acquired at a limited number of angles over a limited angular range and the imaged volume is reconstructed from the two-dimensional projections, thus providing three-dimensional structural information of the breast tissue. In this work, we investigated three representative reconstruction methods for this limited-angle cone-beam tomographic problem, including the backprojection (BP) method, the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) and the maximum likelihood method with the convex algorithm (ML-convex). The SART and ML-convex methods were both initialized with BP results to achieve efficient reconstruction. A second generation GE prototype tomosynthesis mammography system with a stationary digital detector was used for image acquisition. Projection-view images were acquired from 21 angles in 3 degrees increments over a +/- 30 degrees angular range. We used an American College of Radiology phantom and designed three additional phantoms to evaluate the image quality and reconstruction artifacts. In addition to visual comparison of the reconstructed images of different phantom sets, we employed the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), a line profile of features, an artifact spread function (ASF), a relative noise power spectrum (NPS), and a line object spread function (LOSF) to quantitatively evaluate the reconstruction results. It was found that for the phantoms with homogeneous background, the BP method resulted in less noisy tomosynthesized images and higher CNR values for masses than the SART and ML-convex methods. However, the two iterative methods provided greater contrast enhancement for both masses and calcification, sharper LOSF, and reduced interplane blurring and artifacts with better ASF behaviors for masses. For a contrast-detail phantom with heterogeneous tissue-mimicking background, the BP method had strong blurring artifacts along the x-ray source motion direction that obscured the contrast-detail objects, while the other two methods can remove the superimposed breast structures and significantly improve object conspicuity. With a properly selected relaxation parameter, the SART method with one iteration can provide tomosynthesized images comparable to those obtained from the ML-convex method with seven iterations, when BP results were used as initialization for both methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17089843      PMCID: PMC2728559          DOI: 10.1118/1.2237543

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


  27 in total

1.  Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography.

Authors:  S Suryanarayanan; A Karellas; S Vedantham; S J Glick; C J D'Orsi; S P Baker; R L Webber
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 2.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential.

Authors:  James T Dobbins; Devon J Godfrey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-10-07       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Algebraic reconstruction techniques can be made computationally efficient [positron emission tomography application].

Authors:  G T Herman; L B Meyer
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 10.048

4.  Accelerating the EMML algorithm and related iterative algorithms by rescaled block-iterative methods.

Authors:  C L Byrne
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 10.856

5.  Combining various projection access schemes with the algebraic reconstruction technique for low-contrast detection in computed tomography.

Authors:  H Guan; R Gordon; Y Zhu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Algebraic reconstruction techniques (ART) for three-dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography.

Authors:  R Gordon; R Bender; G T Herman
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1970-12       Impact factor: 2.691

7.  An infinite number of laminagrams from a finite number of radiographs.

Authors:  E R Miller; E M McCurry; B Hruska
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Three dimensional roentgenography.

Authors:  J B Garrison; D G Grant; W H Guier; R J Johns
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1969-04

9.  EM reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography.

Authors:  K Lange; R Carson
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 1.826

10.  A new digital tomosynthesis method with less artifacts for angiography.

Authors:  P Haaker; E Klotz; R Koppe; R Linde; H Möller
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1985 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  76 in total

1.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications on planar projection images.

Authors:  Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: a 3D approach.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Jun Wei; Chuan Zhou; Yao Lu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  High resolution stationary digital breast tomosynthesis using distributed carbon nanotube x-ray source array.

Authors:  Xin Qian; Andrew Tucker; Emily Gidcumb; Jing Shan; Guang Yang; Xiomara Calderon-Colon; Shabana Sultana; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Derrek Spronk; Frank Sprenger; Yiheng Zhang; Don Kennedy; Tom Farbizio; Zhenxue Jing
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Image quality of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: effects of projection-view distributions.

Authors:  Yao Lu; Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Wei; Mitch Goodsitt; Paul L Carson; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Andrea Schmitz; Jeffrey W Eberhard; Bernhard E H Claus
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization.

Authors:  Mitra Noroozian; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sahand Rahnama-Moghadam; Katherine A Klein; Deborah O Jeffries; Renee W Pinsky; Heang-Ping Chan; Paul L Carson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  A constrained, total-variation minimization algorithm for low-intensity x-ray CT.

Authors:  Emil Y Sidky; Yuval Duchin; Xiaochuan Pan; Christer Ullberg
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Characterization of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of machine learning in projection views and reconstructed slices.

Authors:  Heang-Ping Chan; Yi-Ta Wu; Berkman Sahiner; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie; Yiheng Zhang; Richard H Moore; Daniel B Kopans; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Ted Way
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Task-based assessment of breast tomosynthesis: effect of acquisition parameters and quantum noise.

Authors:  I Reiser; R M Nishikawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Comparison study of reconstruction algorithms for prototype digital breast tomosynthesis using various breast phantoms.

Authors:  Ye-seul Kim; Hye-suk Park; Haeng-Hwa Lee; Young-Wook Choi; Jae-Gu Choi; Hak Hee Kim; Hee-Joung Kim
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 10.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.