Literature DB >> 29524117

Finite element modelling and validation for breast cancer detection using digital image elasto-tomography.

Hina M Ismail1, Chris G Pretty2, Matthew K Signal3, Marcus Haggers3, J Geoffrey Chase2.   

Abstract

Finite element (FE) models are increasingly used to validate experimental data in breast cancer. This research constructed a biomechanical FE model for breast shaped phantoms used to develop and validate a mechanical vibration based screening system. Such models do not currently exist but would enhance development of this screening technology. Three phantoms were modelled: healthy, with 10 and 20 mm inclusions. The overall goal was to create models with enough accuracy to replace experimental phantoms in providing data to optimize diagnostic algorithms for digital image-based elasto-tomography (DIET) screening technologies. FE model results were validating against experimental DIET phantom data for over 4000 collected points on each model and phantom using cross-correlation coefficients between experimental simulated data and direct comparison. Results showed good to strong correlation ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 in all cases with over 90% having a value over 0.9. Magnitudes for each frame of the dynamic response also matched well, indicating that the material properties and geometry were accurate enough to provide this level of correlation. These results justify the use of FE model generated data for in silico diagnostic algorithm development testing. The overall modelling and validation approach is not overly complex, and thus generalizable to similar problems using mechanical properties of silicone phantoms, and might be extensible to human cases with further work. Graphical abstract Validate that dynamic displacements show that the model can be used in place of phantoms for rapid development of diagnostic algorithms that use surface motion to detect underlying mechanical properties.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Cross-correlation coefficient; Digital image-based elasto-tomography; Finite element method

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29524117     DOI: 10.1007/s11517-018-1804-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput        ISSN: 0140-0118            Impact factor:   2.602


  21 in total

1.  Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression.

Authors:  T A Krouskop; T M Wheeler; F Kallel; B S Garra; T Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.578

2.  Validation of nonrigid image registration using finite-element methods: application to breast MR images.

Authors:  Julia A Schnabel; Christine Tanner; Andy D Castellano-Smith; Andreas Degenhard; Martin O Leach; D Rodney Hose; Derek L G Hill; David J Hawkes
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Automatic image matching for breast cancer diagnostics by a 3D deformation model of the mamma.

Authors:  N V Ruiter; T O Müller; R Stotzka; H Gemmeke; J R Reichenbach; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Biomed Tech (Berl)       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.411

4.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Debbie Saslow; Kimberly Andrews Sawyer; Wylie Burke; Mary E Costanza; W Phil Evans; Roger S Foster; Edward Hendrick; Harmon J Eyre; Steven Sener
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Phantom elasticity reconstruction with Digital Image Elasto-Tomography.

Authors:  Elijah E W Van Houten; Ashton Peters; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2011-06-01

6.  How many tests are required in the diagnosis of palpable breast abnormalities?

Authors:  J R Hardy; T J Powles; I Judson; C Heron; M Williams; G Cherryman; J Husband; D Cosgrove; M Blaszcyzyk; H D Sinnett
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 4.126

Review 7.  Ultrasound elastography: principles and techniques.

Authors:  J-L Gennisson; T Deffieux; M Fink; M Tanter
Journal:  Diagn Interv Imaging       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 4.026

8.  Comparison of recommendations for screening mammography using CISNET models.

Authors:  Elizabeth Kagan Arleo; R Edward Hendrick; Mark A Helvie; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  Current imaging modalities for the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  S L Edell; M D Eisen
Journal:  Del Med J       Date:  1999-09

10.  Silicone breast phantoms for elastographic imaging evaluation.

Authors:  Amer S Kashif; Thomas F Lotz; Matthew D McGarry; Adam J Pattison; James G Chase
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.