Y Ruiz-Gonzalez1, M Perez-Diaz2, D Martínez-Aguila2, M Diaz-Barreto3, I Fleitas3, R Mora-Machado3, L Rigon4, G Tromba5, P Bregant6. 1. Center for Studies on Electronics and Information Technologies, Central University of Las Villas, Villa Clara, Cuba. yuselyr@uclv.edu.cu. 2. Center for Studies on Electronics and Information Technologies, Central University of Las Villas, Villa Clara, Cuba. 3. Centro para el Control Estatal de Medicamentos, Equipos y Dispositivos Médicos, Habana, Cuba. 4. Department of Physics, University of Trieste and INFN, Trieste, Italy. 5. ELETTRA, Sincrotrone Trieste SCpA, Trieste, Italy. 6. Health Physics, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria "Ospedali Riuniti", Trieste, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation is an innovative X-ray imaging practice that improves the identification of breast lesions. Previous studies have proven the superiority of the mammography images taken in the phase-contrast modality using synchrotron radiation beams as compared with images taken in conventional mammography by subjective analyses. However, to our knowledge, no previous study has compared different acquisition systems in order to quantify this improvement by means of objective robust indicators. In this research, we intend to quantify the superiority of phase-contrast imaging by means of objective metrics of image quality. METHODS: Images from the American College of Radiology Mammographic Accreditation Phantom were obtained at hospitals, in two digital mammography equipment and at the Elettra synchrotron radiation facility (Trieste, Italy), using free space propagation phase-contrast modality. Regions of interest were selected to analyze image quality at the fibers (phase object) and masses (area object) simulated on the phantom by means of the signal-to-noise ratio, the figure of merit, the contrast and the edge visibility. RESULTS: The image contrast and edge visibility were significantly higher at the phase-contrast modality as compared with digital mammography equipment. The figure of merit using phase-contrast modality was higher for the fibers and comparable for the masses. CONCLUSION: The results showed an improvement of the contrast and edge visibility in phase-contrast images. These improvements may be important in the detection of small lesions and details.
PURPOSE: Phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation is an innovative X-ray imaging practice that improves the identification of breast lesions. Previous studies have proven the superiority of the mammography images taken in the phase-contrast modality using synchrotron radiation beams as compared with images taken in conventional mammography by subjective analyses. However, to our knowledge, no previous study has compared different acquisition systems in order to quantify this improvement by means of objective robust indicators. In this research, we intend to quantify the superiority of phase-contrast imaging by means of objective metrics of image quality. METHODS: Images from the American College of Radiology Mammographic Accreditation Phantom were obtained at hospitals, in two digital mammography equipment and at the Elettra synchrotron radiation facility (Trieste, Italy), using free space propagation phase-contrast modality. Regions of interest were selected to analyze image quality at the fibers (phase object) and masses (area object) simulated on the phantom by means of the signal-to-noise ratio, the figure of merit, the contrast and the edge visibility. RESULTS: The image contrast and edge visibility were significantly higher at the phase-contrast modality as compared with digital mammography equipment. The figure of merit using phase-contrast modality was higher for the fibers and comparable for the masses. CONCLUSION: The results showed an improvement of the contrast and edge visibility in phase-contrast images. These improvements may be important in the detection of small lesions and details.
Authors: F Arfelli; V Bonvicini; A Bravin; G Cantatore; E Castelli; L D Palma; M D Michiel; M Fabrizioli; R Longo; R H Menk; A Olivo; S Pani; D Pontoni; P Poropat; M Prest; A Rashevsky; M Ratti; L Rigon; G Tromba; A Vacchi; E Vallazza; F Zanconati Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elodie Pagot; Stefan Fiedler; Peter Cloetens; Alberto Bravin; Paola Coan; Kamel Fezzaa; José Baruchel; Jürgen Härtwig; Karl von Smitten; Marjut Leidenius; Marja-Liisa Karjalainen-Lindsberg; Jani Keyriläinen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-02-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: A Olivo; S Gkoumas; M Endrizzi; C K Hagen; M B Szafraniec; P C Diemoz; P R T Munro; K Ignatyev; B Johnson; J A Horrocks; S J Vinnicombe; J L Jones; R D Speller Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D Dreossi; A Abrami; F Arfelli; P Bregant; K Casarin; V Chenda; M A Cova; R Longo; R-H Menk; E Quai; E Quaia; L Rigon; T Rokvic; D Sanabor; M Tonutti; G Tromba; A Vascotto; F Zanconati; E Castelli Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: H Labriet; C Nemoz; M Renier; P Berkvens; T Brochard; R Cassagne; H Elleaume; F Estève; C Verry; J Balosso; J F Adam; E Brun Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 4.379