Literature DB >> 25211509

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.

Mitchell M Goodsitt1, 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.   

Abstract

The effect of acquisition geometry in digital breast tomosynthesis was evaluated with studies of contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) and observer preference. Contrast-detail (CD) test objects in 5 cm thick phantoms with breast-like backgrounds were imaged. Twelve different angular acquisitions (average glandular dose for each ~1.1 mGy) were performed ranging from narrow angle 16° with 17 projection views (16d17p) to wide angle 64d17p. Focal slices of SART-reconstructed images of the CD arrays were selected for CNR computations and the reader preference study. For the latter, pairs of images obtained with different acquisition geometries were randomized and scored by 7 trained readers. The total scores for all images and readings for each acquisition geometry were compared as were the CNRs. In general, readers preferred images acquired with wide angle as opposed to narrow angle geometries. The mean percent preferred was highly correlated with tomosynthesis angle (R = 0.91). The highest scoring geometries were 60d21p (95%), 64d17p (80%), and 48d17p (72%); the lowest scoring were 16d17p (4%), 24d9p (17%) and 24d13p (33%). The measured CNRs for the various acquisitions showed much overlap but were overall highest for wide-angle acquisitions. Finally, the mean reader scores were well correlated with the mean CNRs (R = 0.83).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25211509      PMCID: PMC4264665          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/19/5883

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  33 in total

1.  Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos; Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Srinivasan Vedantham; Carl D'Orsi; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Resolution at oblique incidence angles of a flat panel imager for breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  James G Mainprize; Aili K Bloomquist; Michael P Kempston; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Optimal kvp selection for dual-energy imaging of the chest: evaluation by task-specific observer preference tests.

Authors:  D B Williams; J H Siewerdsen; D J Tward; N S Paul; A C Dhanantwari; N A Shkumat; S Richard; J Yorkston; R Van Metter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Determination of subjective similarity for pairs of masses and pairs of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms: comparison of similarity ranking scores and absolute similarity ratings.

Authors:  Chisako Muramatsu; Qiang Li; Robert A Schmidt; Junji Shiraishi; Kenji Suzuki; Gillian M Newstead; Kunio Doi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Anisotropic imaging performance in breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Aldo Badano; Iacovos S Kyprianou; Robert J Jennings; Josep Sempau
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.071

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.  Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system.

Authors:  Bo Zhao; Wei Zhao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Dual-energy imaging of the chest: optimization of image acquisition techniques for the 'bone-only' image.

Authors:  N A Shkumat; J H Siewerdsen; S Richard; N S Paul; J Yorkston; R Van Metter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables.

Authors:  W T Sobol; X Wu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Ehsan Samei; Robert S Saunders; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  10 in total

1.  Preliminary Clinical Experience with a Combined Automated Breast Ultrasound and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis System.

Authors:  Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Cynthia E Davis; Oliver D Kripfgans; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  Synthesizing mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Colleen H Neal; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Chuan Zhou
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Optimization of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisition parameters for human observers: effect of reconstruction algorithms.

Authors:  Rongping Zeng; Aldo Badano; Kyle J Myers
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.

Authors:  Patrizio Barca; Rocco Lamastra; Raffaele Maria Tucciariello; Antonio Traino; Carolina Marini; Giacomo Aringhieri; Davide Caramella; Maria Evelina Fantacci
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2020-11-23

5.  Improving image quality for digital breast tomosynthesis: an automated detection and diffusion-based method for metal artifact reduction.

Authors:  Yao Lu; Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Wei; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Ravi K Samala
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Detectability comparison of simulated tumors in digital breast tomosynthesis using high-energy X-ray inline phase sensitive and commercial imaging systems.

Authors:  Muhammad U Ghani; Molly D Wong; Farid H Omoumi; Bin Zheng; Laurie L Fajardo; Aimin Yan; Xizeng Wu; Hong Liu
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 2.685

7.  Deep Convolutional Neural Network With Adversarial Training for Denoising Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images.

Authors:  Mingjie Gao; Jeffrey A Fessler; Heang-Ping Chan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 11.037

8.  Human observer performance on in-plane digital breast tomosynthesis images: Effects of reconstruction filters and data acquisition angles on signal detection.

Authors:  Changwoo Lee; Minah Han; Jongduk Baek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Two-phase learning-based 3D deblurring method for digital breast tomosynthesis images.

Authors:  Yunsu Choi; Minah Han; Hanjoo Jang; Hyunjung Shim; Jongduk Baek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Variation in digital breast tomosynthesis image quality at differing heights above the detector.

Authors:  Rob Davidson; Khaled Al Khalifah; Abel Zhou
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2021-12-27
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.