Literature DB >> 20713313

Task-based performance analysis of FBP, SART and ML for digital breast tomosynthesis using signal CNR and Channelised Hotelling Observers.

Dominique Van de Sompel1, Sir Michael Brady, John Boone.   

Abstract

We assess the performance of filtered backprojection (FBP), the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) and the maximum likelihood (ML) algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) under variations in key imaging parameters, including the number of iterations, number of projections, angular range, initial guess, and radiation dose. This is the first study to compare these algorithms for the application of DBT. We present a methodology for the evaluation of DBT reconstructions, and use it to conduct preliminary experiments investigating trade-offs between the selected imaging parameters. This investigation includes trade-offs not previously considered in the DBT literature, such as the use of a stationary detector versus a C-arm imaging geometry. A real breast CT volume serves as a ground truth digital phantom from which to simulate X-ray projections under the various acquisition parameters. The reconstructed image quality is measured using task-based metrics, namely signal CNR and the AUC of a Channelised Hotelling Observer with Laguerre-Gauss basis functions. The task at hand is the detection of a simulated mass inserted into the breast CT volume. We find that the image quality in limited view tomography is highly dependent on the particular acquisition and reconstruction parameters used. In particular, we draw the following conclusions. First, we find that optimising the FBP filter design and SART relaxation parameter yields significant improvements in reconstruction quality from the same projection data. Second, we show that the convergence rate of the maximum likelihood algorithm, optimised with paraboloidal surrogates and conjugate gradient ascent (ML-PSCG), can be greatly accelerated using view-by-view updates. Third, we find that the optimal initial guess is algorithm dependent. In particular, we obtained best results with a zero initial guess for SART, and an FBP initial guess for ML-PSCG. Fourth, when the exposure per view is constant, increasing the total number of views within a given angular range improves the reconstruction quality, albeit with diminishing returns. When the total dose of all views combined is constant, there is a trade-off between increased sampling using a larger number of views and increased levels of quantum noise in each view. Fifth, we do not observe significant differences when testing various access ordering schemes, presumably due to the limited angular range of DBT. Sixth, we find that adjusting the z-resolution of the reconstruction can improve image quality, but that this resolution is best adjusted by using post-reconstruction binning, rather than by declaring lower-resolution voxels. Seventh, we find that the C-arm configuration yields higher image quality than a stationary detector geometry, the difference being most outspoken for the FBP algorithm. Lastly, we find that not all prototype systems found in the literature are currently being run under the best possible system or algorithm configurations. In other words, the present study demonstrates the critical importance (and reward) of using optimisation methodologies such as the one presented here to maximise the DBT reconstruction quality from a single scan of the patient.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20713313     DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2010.07.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Image Anal        ISSN: 1361-8415            Impact factor:   8.545


  9 in total

1.  Reconstruction of PET Images Using Cross-Entropy and Field of Experts.

Authors:  Jose Mejia; Alberto Ochoa; Boris Mederos
Journal:  Entropy (Basel)       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 2.524

Review 2.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk.

Authors:  Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 3.  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 4.  A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process.

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

5.  A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data.

Authors:  Stefano Young; Predrag R Bakic; Kyle J Myers; Robert J Jennings; Subok Park
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Investigating simulation-based metrics for characterizing linear iterative reconstruction in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Sean D Rose; Adrian A Sanchez; Emil Y Sidky; Xiaochuan Pan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: studies of the effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images.

Authors:  Mitchell M Goodsitt; Heang-Ping Chan; Andrea Schmitz; Scott Zelakiewicz; Santosh Telang; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Kuanwong Watcharotone; Mark A Helvie; Chintana Paramagul; Colleen Neal; Emmanuel Christodoulou; Sandra C Larson; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Detector Blur and Correlated Noise Modeling for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jiabei Zheng; Jeffrey A Fessler; Heang-Ping Chan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 9.  Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review.

Authors:  Ehsan Abadi; William P Segars; Benjamin M W Tsui; Paul E Kinahan; Nick Bottenus; Alejandro F Frangi; Andrew Maidment; Joseph Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-04-11
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.