Masaaki Omura1, Hideyuki Hasegawa2, Ryo Nagaoka2, Kenji Yoshida3, Tadashi Yamaguchi4. 1. Graduate School of Science and Engineering (Frontier Science Program), Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoicho, Inage, Chiba, 2638522, Japan. m.omura@chiba-u.jp. 2. Graduate School of Science and Engineering, University of Toyama, Gofuku 3190, Toyama, 9308555, Japan. 3. Center for Frontier Medical Engineering, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoicho, Inage, Chiba, 2638522, Japan. 4. Center for Frontier Medical Engineering, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoicho, Inage, Chiba, 2638522, Japan. yamaguchi@faculty.chiba-u.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The backscatter coefficient (BSC) indicates the absolute scatterer property of a material, independently of clinicians and system settings. Our study verified that the BSC differed among the scanners, transducers, and beamforming methods used for quantitative ultrasound analyses of biological tissues. METHODS: Measurements were performed on four tissue-mimicking homogeneous phantoms containing spherical scatterers with mean diameters of 20 and 30 µm prepared at concentrations of 0.5 and 2.0 wt%, respectively. The BSCs in the different systems were compared using ultrasound scanners with two single-element transducers and five linear high- or low-frequency probes. The beamforming methods were line-by-line formation using focused imaging (FI) and parallel beam formation using plane wave imaging (PWI). The BSC of each system was calculated by the reference phantom method. The mean deviation from the theoretical BSC computed by the Faran model was analyzed as the benchmark validation of the calculated BSC. RESULTS: The BSCs calculated in systems with different properties and beamforming methods well concurred with the theoretical BSC. The mean deviation was below ± 2.8 dB on average, and within the approximate standard deviation (± 2.2 dB at most) in all cases. These variations agreed with a previous study in which the largest error among four different scanners with FI beamforming was 3.5 dB. CONCLUSION: The BSC in PWI was equivalent to those in the other systems and to those of FI beamforming. This result indicates the possibility of ultra-high frame-rate BSC analysis using PWI.
PURPOSE: The backscatter coefficient (BSC) indicates the absolute scatterer property of a material, independently of clinicians and system settings. Our study verified that the BSC differed among the scanners, transducers, and beamforming methods used for quantitative ultrasound analyses of biological tissues. METHODS: Measurements were performed on four tissue-mimicking homogeneous phantoms containing spherical scatterers with mean diameters of 20 and 30 µm prepared at concentrations of 0.5 and 2.0 wt%, respectively. The BSCs in the different systems were compared using ultrasound scanners with two single-element transducers and five linear high- or low-frequency probes. The beamforming methods were line-by-line formation using focused imaging (FI) and parallel beam formation using plane wave imaging (PWI). The BSC of each system was calculated by the reference phantom method. The mean deviation from the theoretical BSC computed by the Faran model was analyzed as the benchmark validation of the calculated BSC. RESULTS: The BSCs calculated in systems with different properties and beamforming methods well concurred with the theoretical BSC. The mean deviation was below ± 2.8 dB on average, and within the approximate standard deviation (± 2.2 dB at most) in all cases. These variations agreed with a previous study in which the largest error among four different scanners with FI beamforming was 3.5 dB. CONCLUSION: The BSC in PWI was equivalent to those in the other systems and to those of FI beamforming. This result indicates the possibility of ultra-high frame-rate BSC analysis using PWI.
Authors: E L Madsen; F Dong; G R Frank; B S Garra; K A Wear; T Wilson; J A Zagzebski; H L Miller; K K Shung; S H Wang; E J Feleppa; T Liu; W D O'Brien; K A Topp; N T Sanghvi; A V Zaitsev; T J Hall; J B Fowlkes; O D Kripfgans; J G Miller Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: François Destrempes; Emilie Franceschini; François T H Yu; Guy Cloutier Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Keith A Wear; Timothy A Stiles; Gary R Frank; Ernest L Madsen; Francis Cheng; Ernest J Feleppa; Christopher S Hall; Beom Soo Kim; Paul Lee; William D O'Brien; Michael L Oelze; Balasundar I Raju; K Kirk Shung; Thaddeus A Wilson; Jian R Yuan Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Julian Garcia-Duitama; Boris Chayer; Aiguo Han; Damien Garcia; Michael L Oelze; Guy Cloutier Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Zara Vajihi; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Timothy J Hall; Hassan Rivaz Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Kibo Nam; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Alexander D Pawlicki; Viksit Kumar; Ernest L Madsen; Goutam Ghoshal; Roberto J Lavarello; Michael L Oelze; Timothy A Bigelow; James A Zagzebski; William D O'Brien; Timothy J Hall Journal: Ultrason Imaging Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 1.578