Literature DB >> 22957600

Ideal-observer detectability in photon-counting differential phase-contrast imaging using a linear-systems approach.

Erik Fredenberg1, Mats Danielsson, J Webster Stayman, Jeffrey H Siewerdsen, Magnus Aslund.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To provide a cascaded-systems framework based on the noise-power spectrum (NPS), modulation transfer function (MTF), and noise-equivalent number of quanta (NEQ) for quantitative evaluation of differential phase-contrast imaging (Talbot interferometry) in relation to conventional absorption contrast under equal-dose, equal-geometry, and, to some extent, equal-photon-economy constraints. The focus is a geometry for photon-counting mammography.
METHODS: Phase-contrast imaging is a promising technology that may emerge as an alternative or adjunct to conventional absorption contrast. In particular, phase contrast may increase the signal-difference-to-noise ratio compared to absorption contrast because the difference in phase shift between soft-tissue structures is often substantially larger than the absorption difference. We have developed a comprehensive cascaded-systems framework to investigate Talbot interferometry, which is a technique for differential phase-contrast imaging. Analytical expressions for the MTF and NPS were derived to calculate the NEQ and a task-specific ideal-observer detectability index under assumptions of linearity and shift invariance. Talbot interferometry was compared to absorption contrast at equal dose, and using either a plane wave or a spherical wave in a conceivable mammography geometry. The impact of source size and spectrum bandwidth was included in the framework, and the trade-off with photon economy was investigated in some detail. Wave-propagation simulations were used to verify the analytical expressions and to generate example images.
RESULTS: Talbot interferometry inherently detects the differential of the phase, which led to a maximum in NEQ at high spatial frequencies, whereas the absorption-contrast NEQ decreased monotonically with frequency. Further, phase contrast detects differences in density rather than atomic number, and the optimal imaging energy was found to be a factor of 1.7 higher than for absorption contrast. Talbot interferometry with a plane wave increased detectability for 0.1-mm tumor and glandular structures by a factor of 3-4 at equal dose, whereas absorption contrast was the preferred method for structures larger than ∼0.5 mm. Microcalcifications are small, but differ from soft tissue in atomic number more than density, which is favored by absorption contrast, and Talbot interferometry was barely beneficial at all within the resolution limit of the system. Further, Talbot interferometry favored detection of "sharp" as opposed to "smooth" structures, and discrimination tasks by about 50% compared to detection tasks. The technique was relatively insensitive to spectrum bandwidth, whereas the projected source size was more important. If equal photon economy was added as a restriction, phase-contrast efficiency was reduced so that the benefit for detection tasks almost vanished compared to absorption contrast, but discrimination tasks were still improved close to a factor of 2 at the resolution limit.
CONCLUSIONS: Cascaded-systems analysis enables comprehensive and intuitive evaluation of phase-contrast efficiency in relation to absorption contrast under requirements of equal dose, equal geometry, and equal photon economy. The benefit of Talbot interferometry was highly dependent on task, in particular detection versus discrimination tasks, and target size, shape, and material. Requiring equal photon economy weakened the benefit of Talbot interferometry in mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22957600      PMCID: PMC3427340          DOI: 10.1118/1.4739195

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


  41 in total

1.  Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment.

Authors:  J M Boone
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Radiation dose efficiency comparison between differential phase contrast CT and conventional absorption CT.

Authors:  Joseph Zambelli; Nicholas Bevins; Zhihua Qi; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Phase-contrast X-ray imaging of breast.

Authors:  Jani Keyriläinen; Alberto Bravin; Manuel Fernández; Mikko Tenhunen; Pekka Virkkunen; Pekka Suortti
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Characterization of imaging performance in differential phase contrast CT compared with the conventional CT--noise power spectrum NPS(k).

Authors:  Xiangyang Tang; Yi Yang; Shaojie Tang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems.

Authors:  C E Metz; R F Wagner; K Doi; D G Brown; R M Nishikawa; K J Myers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Effects of undersampling on the proper interpretation of modulation transfer function, noise power spectra, and noise equivalent quanta of digital imaging systems.

Authors:  J T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Image information content and patient exposure.

Authors:  J W Motz; M Danos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1978 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview.

Authors:  Mahadevappa Mahesh
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.333

9.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise.

Authors:  A E Burgess; F L Jacobson; P F Judy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  A low-absorption x-ray energy filter for small-scale applications.

Authors:  Erik Fredenberg; Björn Cederström; Peter Nillius; Carolina Ribbing; Staffan Karlsson; Mats Danielsson
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2009-07-06       Impact factor: 3.894

View more
  3 in total

1.  Large-angle x-ray scatter in Talbot-Lau interferometry for breast imaging.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Linxi Shi; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Diagnosis of breast cancer based on microcalcifications using grating-based phase contrast CT.

Authors:  Xinbin Li; Hewei Gao; Zhiqiang Chen; Li Zhang; Xiaohua Zhu; Shengping Wang; Weijun Peng
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  X-ray phase contrast imaging of the breast: analysis of tissue simulating materials.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.071

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.