Yanka Baneva1, Kristina Bliznakova2, Lesley Cockmartin3, Stoyko Marinov4, Ivan Buliev4, Giovanni Mettivier5, Hilde Bosmans3, Paolo Russo5, Nicholas Marshall3, Zhivko Bliznakov4. 1. Department of Physics and Biophysics, Medical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria. 2. Laboratory of Computer Simulations in Medicine, Technical University of Varna, Varna 9010, Bulgaria. Electronic address: kristina.bliznakova@tu-varna.bg. 3. Medical Imaging Research Center, Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 4. Laboratory of Computer Simulations in Medicine, Technical University of Varna, Varna 9010, Bulgaria. 5. Università di Napoli Federico II, Dipartimento di Fisica "Ettore Pancini", and INFN Sezione di Napoli, Napoli, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In X-ray imaging, test objects reproducing breast anatomy characteristics are realized to optimize issues such as image processing or reconstruction, lesion detection performance, image quality and radiation induced detriment. Recently, a physical phantom with a structured background has been introduced for both 2D mammography and breast tomosynthesis. A software version of this phantom and a few related versions are now available and a comparison between these 3D software phantoms and the physical phantom will be presented. METHODS: The software breast phantom simulates a semi-cylindrical container filled with spherical beads of different diameters. Four computational breast phantoms were generated with a dedicated software application and for two of these, physical phantoms are also available and they are used for the side by side comparison. Planar projections in mammography and tomosynthesis were simulated under identical incident air kerma conditions. Tomosynthesis slices were reconstructed with an in-house developed reconstruction software. In addition to a visual comparison, parameters like fractal dimension, power law exponent β and second order statistics (skewness, kurtosis) of planar projections and tomosynthesis reconstructed images were compared. RESULTS: Visually, an excellent agreement between simulated and real planar and tomosynthesis images is observed. The comparison shows also an overall very good agreement between parameters evaluated from simulated and experimental images. CONCLUSION: The computational breast phantoms showed a close match with their physical versions. The detailed mathematical analysis of the images confirms the agreement between real and simulated 2D mammography and tomosynthesis images. The software phantom is ready for optimization purpose and extrapolation of the phantom to other breast imaging techniques.
INTRODUCTION: In X-ray imaging, test objects reproducing breast anatomy characteristics are realized to optimize issues such as image processing or reconstruction, lesion detection performance, image quality and radiation induced detriment. Recently, a physical phantom with a structured background has been introduced for both 2D mammography and breast tomosynthesis. A software version of this phantom and a few related versions are now available and a comparison between these 3D software phantoms and the physical phantom will be presented. METHODS: The software breast phantom simulates a semi-cylindrical container filled with spherical beads of different diameters. Four computational breast phantoms were generated with a dedicated software application and for two of these, physical phantoms are also available and they are used for the side by side comparison. Planar projections in mammography and tomosynthesis were simulated under identical incident air kerma conditions. Tomosynthesis slices were reconstructed with an in-house developed reconstruction software. In addition to a visual comparison, parameters like fractal dimension, power law exponent β and second order statistics (skewness, kurtosis) of planar projections and tomosynthesis reconstructed images were compared. RESULTS: Visually, an excellent agreement between simulated and real planar and tomosynthesis images is observed. The comparison shows also an overall very good agreement between parameters evaluated from simulated and experimental images. CONCLUSION: The computational breast phantoms showed a close match with their physical versions. The detailed mathematical analysis of the images confirms the agreement between real and simulated 2D mammography and tomosynthesis images. The software phantom is ready for optimization purpose and extrapolation of the phantom to other breast imaging techniques.
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
Authors: Giovanni Mettivier; Antonio Sarno; Youfang Lai; Bruno Golosio; Viviana Fanti; Maria Elena Italiano; Xun Jia; Paolo Russo Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 6.639