Literature DB >> 23464332

Dependency of image quality on system configuration parameters in a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system.

Andrew W Tucker1, Jianping Lu, Otto Zhou.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In principle, a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis (s-DBT) system has better image quality when compared to continuous motion DBT systems due to zero motion blur of the source. The authors have developed a s-DBT system by using a linear carbon nanotube x-ray source array. The purpose of the current study was to quantitatively evaluate the performance of the s-DBT system; and investigate the dependence of imaging quality on the system configuration parameters.
METHODS: Physical phantoms were used to assess the image quality of each configuration including inplane resolution as measured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), inplane contrast as measured by the signal difference to noise ratio (SdNR), and depth resolution as measured by the z-axis artifact spread function. Five parameters were varied to create five groups of configurations: (1) total angular span; (2) total number of projection images; (3) distribution of exposure (mAs) across the projection images; (4) entrance dose; (5) detector pixel size.
RESULTS: It was found that the z-axis depth resolution increased with the total angular span but was insensitive to the number of projection images, mAs distribution, entrance dose, and detector pixel size. The SdNR was not affected by the angular span or the number of projection images. A decrease in SdNR was observed when the mAs was not evenly distributed across the projection images. As expected, the SdNR increased with entrance dose and when larger pixel sizes were used. For a given detector pixel size, the inplane resolution was found to be insensitive to the total angular span, number of projection images, mAs distribution, and entrance dose. A 25% increase in the MTF was observed when the detector was operating in full resolution mode (70 μm pixel size) compared to 2 × 2 binned mode (140 μm pixel size).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the optimal imaging configuration for a s-DBT system is a large angular span, an intermittent number of projection views, and a uniform mAs distribution over all views. With the detector operating at full resolution, a stationary DBT system can achieve an inplane resolution of 5.1 cycles per mm, which is significantly better than continuous motion DBT systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23464332      PMCID: PMC3600660          DOI: 10.1118/1.4792296

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Task-based assessment of breast tomosynthesis: effect of acquisition parameters and quantum noise.

Authors:  I Reiser; R M Nishikawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Tao Wu; Richard H Moore; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Evaluation of the spatial resolution characteristics of a cone-beam breast CT scanner.

Authors:  Alexander L C Kwan; John M Boone; Kai Yang; Shih-Ying Huang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital radiography.

Authors:  H Fujita; D Y Tsai; T Itoh; K Doi; J Morishita; K Ueda; A Ohtsuka
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach.

Authors:  Yue-Houng Hu; Bo Zhao; Wei Zhao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Stationary digital breast tomosynthesis with distributed field emission X-ray tube.

Authors:  F Sprenger; X Calderon; E Gidcumb; J Lu; X Qian; D Spronk; A Tucker; G Yang; O Zhou
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2011-03-03

8.  Optimized image acquisition for breast tomosynthesis in projection and reconstruction space.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Design and characterization of a spatially distributed multibeam field emission x-ray source for stationary digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Xin Qian; Ramya Rajaram; Xiomara Calderon-Colon; Guang Yang; Tuyen Phan; David S Lalush; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  13 in total

1.  Statistical iterative reconstruction to improve image quality for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Shiyu Xu; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Ying Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Stationary intraoral digital tomosynthesis using a carbon nanotube X-ray source array.

Authors:  J Shan; A W Tucker; L R Gaalaas; G Wu; E Platin; A Mol; J Lu; O Zhou
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Pulmonary nodule size evaluation with chest tomosynthesis and CT: a phantom study.

Authors:  S S Shim; Y-W Oh; K A Kong; Y J Ryu; Y Kim; D H Jang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments, and number of projection views.

Authors:  Heang-Ping Chan; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Mark A Helvie; Scott Zelakiewicz; Andrea Schmitz; Mitra Noroozian; Chintana Paramagul; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Alexis V Nees; Colleen H Neal; Paul Carson; Yao Lu; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Jun Wei
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Carbon nanotube electron field emitters for x-ray imaging of human breast cancer.

Authors:  Emily Gidcumb; Bo Gao; Jing Shan; Christy Inscoe; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou
Journal:  Nanotechnology       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 3.874

6.  Quantitative assessment of microcalcification cluster image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis, 2-dimensional and synthetic mammography.

Authors:  Andreas E Petropoulos; Spyros G Skiadopoulos; Anna N Karahaliou; Gerasimos A T Messaris; Nikolaos S Arikidis; Lena I Costaridou
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2019-12-07       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  Comparison of a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system to magnified 2D mammography using breast tissue specimens.

Authors:  Andrew W Tucker; Jabari Calliste; Emily M Gidcumb; Jaclyn Wu; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Noorie Hyun; Donglin Zeng; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Yueh Z Lee
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Studies of a prototype linear stationary x-ray source for tomosynthesis imaging.

Authors:  P R Schwoebel; John M Boone; Joe Shao
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  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

10.  Initial Clinical Experience with Stationary Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Yueh Z Lee; Connor Puett; Christina R Inscoe; Beilin Jia; Connie Kim; Ruth Walsh; Sora Yoon; Suk Jung Kim; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Donglin Zeng; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.