Literature DB >> 22518954

Ultrasonic attenuation and backscatter coefficient estimates of rodent-tumor-mimicking structures: comparison of results among clinical scanners.

Kibo Nam1, Ivan M Rosado-Mendez, Lauren A Wirtzfeld, Alexander D Pawlicki, Viksit Kumar, Ernest L Madsen, Goutam Ghoshal, Roberto J Lavarello, Michael L Oelze, Timothy A Bigelow, James A Zagzebski, William D O'Brien, Timothy J Hall.   

Abstract

In vivo estimations of the frequency-dependent acoustic attenuation (alpha) and backscatter (eta) coefficients using radiofrequency (rf) echoes acquired with clinical ultrasound systems must be independent of the data acquisition setup and the estimation procedures. In a recent in vivo assessment of these parameters in rodent mammary tumors, overall agreement was observed among alpha and eta estimates using data from four clinical imaging systems. In some cases, particularly in highly-attenuating heterogeneous tumors, multisystem variability was observed. This paper compares alpha and eta estimates of a well-characterized rodent-tumor-mimicking homogeneous phantom scanned using seven transducers with the same four clinical imaging systems: a Siemens Acuson S2000, an Ultrasonix RP, a Zonare Z.one and a VisualSonics Vevo2100. alpha and eta estimates of lesion-mimicking spheres in the phantom were independently assessed by three research groups, who analyzed their system's rf echo signals. Imaging-system-based estimates of alpha and eta of both lesion-mimicking spheres were comparable to through-transmission laboratory estimates and to predictions using Faran's theory, respectively. A few notable variations in results among the clinical systems were observed but the average and maximum percent difference between alpha estimates and laboratory-assessed values was 11% and 29%, respectively. Excluding a single outlier dataset, the average and maximum average difference between eta estimates for the clinical systems and values predicted from scattering theory was 16% and 33%, respectively. These results were an improvement over previous interlaboratory comparisons of attenuation and backscatter estimates. Although the standardization of our estimation methodologies can be further improved, this study validates our results from previous rodent breast-tumor model studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22518954      PMCID: PMC3384732          DOI: 10.1177/016173461103300403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrason Imaging        ISSN: 0161-7346            Impact factor:   1.578


  21 in total

1.  Identifying ultrasonic scattering sites from three-dimensional impedance maps.

Authors:  Jonathan Mamou; Michael L Oelze; William D O'Brien; James F Zachary
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Estimation of total attenuation and scatterer size from backscattered ultrasound waveforms.

Authors:  Timothy A Bigelow; Michael L Oelze; William D O'Brien
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Initial clinical experience imaging scatterer size and strain in thyroid nodules.

Authors:  Thaddeus Wilson; Quan Chen; James A Zagzebski; Tomy Varghese; Lester VanMiddlesworth
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.153

4.  Parametric ultrasound imaging from backscatter coefficient measurements: image formation and interpretation.

Authors:  M F Insana; T J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 1.578

5.  A method for in vitro mapping of ultrasonic speed and density in breast tissue.

Authors:  J N Yang; A D Murphy; E L Madsen; J A Zagzebski; K W Gilchrist; G R Frank; M C Macdonald; C A Millard; A Faraggi; C A Jaramillo
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 1.578

6.  Comparison of theoretical scattering results and ultrasonic data from clinical liver examinations.

Authors:  F L Lizzi; D L King; M C Rorke; J Hui; M Ostromogilsky; M M Yaremko; E J Feleppa; P Wai
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  The use of angular acoustic scattering measurements to estimate structural parameters of human and animal tissues.

Authors:  D K Nassiri; C R Hill
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Cross-imaging platform comparison of ultrasonic backscatter coefficient measurements of live rat tumors.

Authors:  Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Goutam Ghoshal; Zachary T Hafez; Kibo Nam; Yassin Labyed; Janelle J Anderson; Maria-Teresa Herd; Alexander Haak; Zhi He; Rita J Miller; Sandhya Sarwate; Douglas G Simpson; James A Zagzebski; Timothy A Bigelow; Michael L Oelze; Timothy J Hall; William D O'Brien
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.153

9.  Ultrasonic characterization of selected renal tissues.

Authors:  D H Turnbull; S R Wilson; A L Hine; F S Foster
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.998

10.  Identifying acoustic scattering sources in normal renal parenchyma in vivo by varying arterial and ureteral pressures.

Authors:  M F Insana; J G Wood; T J Hall
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.998

View more
  15 in total

1.  Evaluation of the impact of backscatter intensity variations on ultrasound attenuation estimation.

Authors:  Eenas A Omari; Tomy Varghese; Ernest L Madsen; Gary Frank
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  The mechanical role of the cervix in pregnancy.

Authors:  Kristin M Myers; Helen Feltovich; Edoardo Mazza; Joy Vink; Michael Bajka; Ronald J Wapner; Timothy J Hall; Michael House
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Signal to noise ratio comparisons for ultrasound attenuation slope estimation algorithms.

Authors:  Eenas A Omari; Tomy Varghese
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Validation of differences in backscatter coefficients among four ultrasound scanners with different beamforming methods.

Authors:  Masaaki Omura; Hideyuki Hasegawa; Ryo Nagaoka; Kenji Yoshida; Tadashi Yamaguchi
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2019-11-03       Impact factor: 1.314

5.  A Quantitative Ultrasound-Based Multi-Parameter Classifier for Breast Masses.

Authors:  Haidy G Nasief; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Comparison of ultrasound attenuation and backscatter estimates in layered tissue-mimicking phantoms among three clinical scanners.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Goutam Ghoshal; Alexander D Pawlicki; Ernest L Madsen; Roberto J Lavarello; Michael L Oelze; James A Zagzebski; William D O'Brien; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.578

7.  Quantifying Backscatter Anisotropy Using the Reference Phantom Method.

Authors:  Quinton W Guerrero; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lindsey C Drehfal; Helen Feltovich; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 2.725

8.  Gap-filling method for suppressing grating lobes in ultrasound imaging: Experimental study with deep-learning approach.

Authors:  Viksit Kumar; Po-Yang Lee; Bae-Hyung Kim; Mostafa Fatemi; Azra Alizad
Journal:  IEEE Access       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 3.367

9.  Method for estimating total attenuation from a spatial map of attenuation slope for quantitative ultrasound imaging.

Authors:  Alexander D Pawlicki; William D O'Brien
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.578

10.  Techniques and evaluation from a cross-platform imaging comparison of quantitative ultrasound parameters in an in vivo rodent fibroadenoma model.

Authors:  Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Kibo Nam; Yassin Labyed; Goutam Ghoshal; Alexander Haak; Ellora Sen-Gupta; Zhi He; Nathaniel R Hirtz; Rita J Miller; Sandhya Sarwate; Douglas G Simpson; James A Zagzebski; Timothy A Bigelow; Michael Oelze; Timothy J Hall; William D O'Brien
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.725

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.