Literature DB >> 17955296

Thick slices from tomosynthesis data sets: phantom study for the evaluation of different algorithms.

Felix Diekmann1, Henning Meyer, Susanne Diekmann, Sylvie Puong, Serge Muller, Ulrich Bick, Patrik Rogalla.   

Abstract

Tomosynthesis is a 3-dimensional mammography technique that generates thin slices separated one to the other by typically 1 mm from source data sets. The relatively high image noise in these thin slices raises the value of 1-cm thick slices computed from the set of reconstructed slices for image interpretation. In an initial evaluation, we investigated the potential of different algorithms for generating thick slices from tomosynthesis source data (maximum intensity projection-MIP; average algorithm-AV, and image generation by means of a new algorithm, so-called softMip). The three postprocessing techniques were evaluated using a homogeneous phantom with one textured slab with a total thickness of about 5 cm in which two 0.5-cm-thick slabs contained objects to simulate microcalcifications, spiculated masses, and round masses. The phantom was examined by tomosynthesis (GE Healthcare). Microcalcifications were simulated by inclusion of calcium particles of four different sizes. The slabs containing the inclusions were examined in two different configurations: adjacent to each other and close to the detector and with the two slabs separated by two 1-cm thick breast equivalent material slabs. The reconstructed tomosynthesis slices were postprocessed using MIP, AV, and softMip to generate 1-cm thick slices with a lower noise level. The three postprocessing algorithms were assessed by calculating the resulting contrast versus background for the simulated microcalcifications and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) for the other objects. The CNRs of the simulated round and spiculated masses were most favorable for the thick slices generated with the average algorithm, followed by softMip and MIP. Contrast of the simulated microcalcifications was best for MIP, followed by softMip and average projections. Our results suggest that the additional generation of thick slices may improve the visualization of objects in tomosynthesis. This improvement differs from the different algorithms for microcalcifications, speculated objects, and round masses. SoftMip is a new approach combining features of MIP and average showing image properties in between MIP and AV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17955296      PMCID: PMC3043718          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-007-9075-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  17 in total

1.  Potential of digital flashing tomosynthesis for angiocardiographic evaluation.

Authors:  G M Stiel; L S Stiel; C A Nienaber
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Digital breast imaging: tomosynthesis and digital subtraction mammography.

Authors:  L T Niklason; D B Kopans; L M Hamberg
Journal:  Breast Dis       Date:  1998-08

3.  Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Hans Roehrig; William Dallas; Jiahua Fan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Potential of dose reduction after marker placement with full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Christopher C Riedl; Silvia Jaromi; Daniel Floery; Georg Pfarl; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Silvia Obenauer; Christian Sohns; Carola Werner; Eckhardt Grabbe
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Fractal analysis of contours of breast masses in mammograms.

Authors:  Rangaraj M Rangayyan; Thanh M Nguyen
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.056

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

Authors:  Yiheng Zhang; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Jun Wei; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Jun Ge; Chuan Zhou
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images.

Authors:  I Reiser; R M Nishikawa; M L Giger; T Wu; E A Rafferty; R Moore; D B Kopans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.

Authors:  L T Niklason; B T Christian; L E Niklason; D B Kopans; D E Castleberry; B H Opsahl-Ong; C E Landberg; P J Slanetz; A A Giardino; R Moore; D Albagli; M C DeJule; P F Fitzgerald; D F Fobare; B W Giambattista; R F Kwasnick; J Liu; S J Lubowski; G E Possin; J F Richotte; C Y Wei; R F Wirth
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.

Authors:  Xing Gong; Stephen J Glick; Bob Liu; Aruna A Vedula; Samta Thacker
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications.

Authors:  Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  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 4.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

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

5.  Elastographic Tomosynthesis From X-Ray Strain Imaging of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Corey Sutphin; Eric Olson; Yuichi Motai; Suk Jin Lee; Jae G Kim; Kazuaki Takabe
Journal:  IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 3.316

6.  Visualizing microcalcifications in lumpectomy specimens: an exploration into the clinical potential of carbon nanotube-enabled stationary digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Connor Puett; Jenny Gao; Andrew Tucker; Christina R Inscoe; Michael Hwang; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Yueh Z Lee
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2019-07-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.