Literature DB >> 20384236

The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging.

Christina M Shafer1, Ehsan Samei, Joseph Y Lo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Due to its limited angular scan range, breast tomosynthesis has lower resolution in the depth direction, which may limit its accuracy in quantifying tissue density. This study assesses the quantitative potential of breast tomosynthesis using relatively simple reconstruction and image processing algorithms. This quantitation could allow improved characterization of lesions as well as image processing to present tomosynthesis images with the familiar appearance of mammography by preserving more low-frequency information.
METHODS: All studies were based on a Siemens prototype MAMMOMAT Novation TOMO breast tomo system with a 45 degrees total angular span. This investigation was performed using both simulations and empirical measurements. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted using the breast tomosynthesis geometry and tissue-equivalent, uniform, voxelized phantoms with cuboid lesions of varying density embedded within. Empirical studies were then performed using tissue-equivalent plastic phantoms which were imaged on the actual prototype system. The material surrounding the lesions was set to either fat-equivalent or glandular-equivalent plastic. From the simulation experiments, the effects of scatter, lesion depth, and background material density were studied. The empirical experiments studied the effects of lesion depth, background material density, x-ray tube energy, and exposure level. Additionally, the proposed analysis methods were independently evaluated using a commercially available QA breast phantom (CIRS Model 11A). All image reconstruction was performed with a filtered backprojection algorithm. Reconstructed voxel values within each slice were corrected to reduce background nonuniformities.
RESULTS: The resulting lesion voxel values varied linearly with known glandular fraction (correlation coefficient R2 > 0.90) under all simulated and empirical conditions, including for the independent tests with the QA phantom. Analysis of variance performed on the fit line parameters revealed statistically significant differences between the two different background materials and between 28 kVp and the remaining energies (26, 30, and 32 kVp) for the dense experimental phantom. How ever, no significant differences arose between different energies for the fatty phantom, nor for any of the many other combinations of parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: These strong linear relationships suggest that breast tomosynthesis image voxel values, after being corrected by our outlined methods, are highly positively correlated with true tissue density. This consistent linearity implies that breast tomosynthesis imaging indeed has potential to be quantitative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20384236      PMCID: PMC2833185          DOI: 10.1118/1.3285038

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


  18 in total

1.  Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation.

Authors:  J M Boone; T R Nelson; K K Lindfors; J A Seibert
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  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

4.  Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.

Authors:  J W Byng; N F Boyd; E Fishell; R A Jong; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis--a feasibility study.

Authors:  A-K Carton; S C Gavenonis; J A Currivan; E F Conant; M D Schnall; A D A Maidment
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  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

8.  Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography.

Authors:  J M Boone; T R Fewell; R J Jennings
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images.

Authors:  Tao Wu; Alexander Stewart; Martin Stanton; Thomas McCauley; Walter Phillips; Daniel B Kopans; Richard H Moore; Jeffrey W Eberhard; Beale Opsahl-Ong; Loren Niklason; Mark B Williams
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Tomosynthesis: a three-dimensional radiographic imaging technique.

Authors:  D G Grant
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1972-01       Impact factor: 4.538

View more
  5 in total

1.  Model predictions for the wide-angle x-ray scatter signals of healthy and malignant breast duct biopsies.

Authors:  Robert J LeClair; Andrew Ferreira; Nancy McDonald; Curtis Laamanen; Robert Y Tang
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-10-23

Review 2.  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

3.  A digital x-ray tomosynthesis coupled near infrared spectral tomography system for dual-modality breast imaging.

Authors:  Venkataramanan Krishnaswamy; Kelly E Michaelsen; Brian W Pogue; Steven P Poplack; Ian Shaw; Ken Defrietas; Ken Brooks; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 3.894

4.  Correlation of free-response and receiver-operating-characteristic area-under-the-curve estimates: results from independently conducted FROC∕ROC studies in mammography.

Authors:  Federica Zanca; Stephen L Hillis; Filip Claus; Chantal Van Ongeval; Valerie Celis; Veerle Provoost; Hong-Jun Yoon; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Generation of a suite of 3D computer-generated breast phantoms from a limited set of human subject data.

Authors:  Christina M L Hsu; Mark L Palmeri; W Paul Segars; Alexander I Veress; James T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.071

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.