| Literature DB >> 26246848 |
V Koukou1, N Martini1, C Michail2, P Sotiropoulou1, C Fountzoula3, N Kalyvas2, I Kandarakis2, G Nikiforidis1, G Fountos2.
Abstract
Dual energy methods can suppress the contrast between adipose and glandular tissues in the breast and therefore enhance the visibility of calcifications. In this study, a dual energy method based on analytical modeling was developed for the detection of minimum microcalcification thickness. To this aim, a modified radiographic X-ray unit was considered, in order to overcome the limited kVp range of mammographic units used in previous DE studies, combined with a high resolution CMOS sensor (pixel size of 22.5 μm) for improved resolution. Various filter materials were examined based on their K-absorption edge. Hydroxyapatite (HAp) was used to simulate microcalcifications. The contrast to noise ratio (CNR tc ) of the subtracted images was calculated for both monoenergetic and polyenergetic X-ray beams. The optimum monoenergetic pair was 23/58 keV for the low and high energy, respectively, resulting in a minimum detectable microcalcification thickness of 100 μm. In the polyenergetic X-ray study, the optimal spectral combination was 40/70 kVp filtered with 100 μm cadmium and 1000 μm copper, respectively. In this case, the minimum detectable microcalcification thickness was 150 μm. The proposed dual energy method provides improved microcalcification detectability in breast imaging with mean glandular dose values within acceptable levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26246848 PMCID: PMC4515945 DOI: 10.1155/2015/574238
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Elemental composition (weight fractions) of breast phantom materials.
| Materials | Elemental composition (weight fraction) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | C | N | O | |
| Adipose tissue | 11.2 | 61.9 | 1.7 | 25.1 |
| Glandular tissue | 10.2 | 18.4 | 3.2 | 67.7 |
Density values for the materials used in the calculations.
| Materials | Density (g/cm3) |
|---|---|
| Ca5(PO4)3(OH) | 3.18 |
| Gd2O2S:Tb | 7.34 |
| Adipose tissue | 0.93 |
| Glandular tissue | 1.04 |
Figure 1Schematic representation of the simulated set-up.
Figure 2Plots of CNR as a function of the low dose ratio for all the examined calcification thicknesses.
Figure 3Plot of mean pixel value as a function of the detector entrance dose for the low-energy beam (a) and the high-energy beam (b). The point at the right in (b) was ignored in the linear regression, since it was above the saturation point.
Figure 4Plots of RMSErel as a function of surface density (g/cm2) for all low-energy filter materials.
Figure 5Plots of RMSErel and CVΦ( as a function of surface density (g/cm2) for Cd.
Figure 6CNR values as a function of surface density (g/cm2) for all high-energy filters, combined with 100 μm Cd (LE filter).
Figure 7Entrance dose and CNR values as functions of surface density (g/cm2) of Cu (HE filter).
Unfiltered and filtered entrance surface doses (ESD).
| Unfiltered ESD (mGy) | Filtered ESD (mGy) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LE | HE | Total | LE | HE | Total | LDR |
| 11.31 | 36.99 | 48.31 | 2.28 | 1.24 | 3.52 | 0.64 |
| 5.65 | 36.99 | 42.64 | 1.14 | 1.24 | 2.38 | 0.47 |
| 2.83 | 36.99 | 39.82 | 0.57 | 1.24 | 1.81 | 0.31 |
| 11.31 | 23.12 | 34.43 | 2.28 | 0.78 | 3.06 | 0.75 |
| 5.65 | 23.12 | 28.77 | 1.14 | 0.78 | 1.92 | 0.59 |
| 2.83 | 23.12 | 25.95 | 0.57 | 0.78 | 1.35 | 0.42 |
| 2.83 | 11.56 | 14.39 | 0.57 | 0.39 | 0.96 | 0.59 |
Entrance surface dose (ESD) values and MGD for 50% glandularity.
| Low energy | High energy | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ESD (mGy) | MGD (mGy) | ESD (mGy) | MGD (mGy) |
| 2.28 | 1.27 | 1.24 | 1.43 |
| 1.14 | 0.62 | 0.78 | 1.00 |
| 0.57 | 0.30 | 0.39 | 0.50 |
Figure 8CNR values as a function of calcification thickness (μm) for various entrance doses.
Figure 9Dual energy subtracted image showing a calcification thickness of 300 μm.