Literature DB >> 28379851

Detectability comparison between a high energy x-ray phase sensitive and mammography systems in imaging phantoms with varying glandular-adipose ratios.

Muhammad U Ghani1, Molly D Wong, Di Wu, Bin Zheng, Laurie L Fajardo, Aimin Yan, Janis Fuh, Xizeng Wu, Hong Liu.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the potential benefits of using high energy x-rays in comparison with the conventional mammography imaging systems for phase sensitive imaging of breast tissues with varying glandular-adipose ratios. This study employed two modular phantoms simulating the glandular (G) and adipose (A) breast tissue composition in 50 G-50 A and 70 G-30 A percentage densities. Each phantom had a thickness of 5 cm with a contrast detail test pattern embedded in the middle. For both phantoms, the phase contrast images were acquired using a micro-focus x-ray source operated at 120 kVp and 4.5 mAs, with a magnification factor (M) of 2.5 and a detector with a 50 µm pixel pitch. The mean glandular dose delivered to the 50 G-50 A and 70 G-30 A phantom sets were 1.33 and 1.3 mGy, respectively. A phase retrieval algorithm based on the phase attenuation duality that required only a single phase contrast image was applied. Conventional low energy mammography images were acquired using GE Senographe DS and Hologic Selenia systems utilizing their automatic exposure control (AEC) settings. In addition, the automatic contrast mode (CNT) was also used for the acquisition with the GE system. The AEC mode applied higher dose settings for the 70 G-30 A phantom set. As compared to the phase contrast images, the dose levels for the AEC mode acquired images were similar while the dose levels for the CNT mode were almost double. The observer study, contrast-to-noise ratio and figure of merit comparisons indicated a large improvement with the phase retrieved images in comparison to the AEC mode images acquired with the clinical systems for both density levels. As the glandular composition increased, the detectability of smaller discs decreased with the clinical systems, particularly with the GE system, even at higher dose settings. As compared to the CNT mode (double dose) images, the observer study also indicated that the phase retrieved images provided similar or improved detection for all disc sizes except for the disk diameters of 2 mm and 1 mm for the 50 G-50 A phantom and 3 mm and 0.5 mm for the 70 G-30 A phantom. This study demonstrated the potential of utilizing a high energy phase sensitive x-ray imaging system to improve lesion detection and reduce radiation dose when imaging breast tissues with varying glandular compositions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28379851      PMCID: PMC5673096          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa644b

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


  35 in total

1.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images.

Authors:  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Hetal Ved; Stephen P Baker; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The association of measured breast tissue characteristics with mammographic density and other risk factors for breast cancer.

Authors:  Tong Li; Limei Sun; Naomi Miller; Trudey Nicklee; Jennifer Woo; Lee Hulse-Smith; Ming-Sound Tsao; Rama Khokha; Lisa Martin; Norman Boyd
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables.

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

5.  Characterization of a high-energy in-line phase contrast tomosynthesis prototype.

Authors:  Di Wu; Aimin Yan; Yuhua Li; Molly D Wong; Bin Zheng; Xizeng Wu; Hong Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Phase retrieval method for in-line phase contrast x-ray imaging and denoising by regularization.

Authors:  Ping-Chang Lee
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Dose and detectability improvements with high energy phase sensitive x-ray imaging in comparison to low energy conventional imaging.

Authors:  Molly Donovan Wong; Aimin Yan; Muhammad Ghani; Yuhua Li; Laurie Fajardo; Xizeng Wu; Hong Liu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 8.  Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Authors:  R D Rosenberg; W C Hunt; M R Williamson; F D Gilliland; P W Wiest; C A Kelsey; C R Key; M N Linver
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

Authors:  Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  7 in total

1.  Dose and diagnostic performance comparison between phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation and digital mammography: a clinical study report.

Authors:  Christian Fedon; Luigi Rigon; Fulvia Arfelli; Diego Dreossi; Elisa Quai; Maura Tonutti; Giuliana Tromba; Maria Assunta Cova; Renata Longo
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-02-01

2.  Radiochromic film dosimetry in synchrotron radiation breast computed tomography: a phantom study.

Authors:  Giovanni Mettivier; Marica Masi; Fulvia Arfelli; Luca Brombal; Pasquale Delogu; Francesca Di Lillo; Sandro Donato; Christian Fedon; Bruno Golosio; Piernicola Oliva; Luigi Rigon; Antonio Sarno; Angelo Taibi; Paolo Russo
Journal:  J Synchrotron Radiat       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 2.616

3.  A phase sensitive x-ray breast tomosynthesis system: Preliminary patient images with cancer lesions.

Authors:  Muhammad U Ghani; Laurie L Fajardo; Farid Omoumi; Aimin Yan; Peter Jenkins; Molly Wong; Yuhua Li; Michael E Peterson; Edward J Callahan; Stephen L Hillis; Bin Zheng; Xizeng Wu; Hong Liu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Impact of a single distance phase retrieval algorithm on spatial resolution in X-ray inline phase sensitive imaging.

Authors:  Muhammad U Ghani; Bradley Gregory; Farid Omoumi; Bin Zheng; Aimin Yan; Xizeng Wu; Hong Liu
Journal:  Biomed Spectrosc Imaging       Date:  2019-02-22

5.  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

6.  The Potential of Utilizing Mid-Energy X-Rays for In-Line Phase Sensitive Breast Cancer Imaging.

Authors:  F H Omoumi; M U Ghani; M D Wong; Y Li; B Zheng; A Yan; P A Jenkins; X Wu; H Liu
Journal:  Biomed Spectrosc Imaging       Date:  2020-12-28

7.  Development and preclinical evaluation of a patient-specific high energy x-ray phase sensitive breast tomosynthesis system.

Authors:  Muhammad U Ghani; Xizeng Wu; Laurie L Fajardo; Zhengxue Jing; Molly D Wong; Bin Zheng; Farid Omoumi; Yuhua Li; Aimin Yan; Peter Jenkins; Stephen L Hillis; Laura Linstroth; Hong Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 4.071

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.