Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba1, Patrycja Baran2, Yakov I Nesterets3,4, Serena Pacile5, Susanne Wienbeck6, Christian Dullin5,6,7, Konstantin Pavlov4,8,9, Anton Maksimenko10, Darren Lockie11, Sheridan C Mayo3, Harry M Quiney2, Diego Dreossi5, Fulvia Arfelli12, Giuliana Tromba5, Sarah Lewis13, Timur E Gureyev13,2,4,9, Patrick C Brennan13. 1. The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, 2141, Australia. amir.tavakoli@sydney.edu.au. 2. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia. 3. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia. 4. University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, 2351, Australia. 5. Elettra - Sincrotrone, Basovizza, 34149, Trieste, Italy. 6. University Medical Center Goettingen, 37075, Gottingen, Lower Saxony, Germany. 7. Max-Planck-Institute for Experimental Medicine, 37075, Gottingen, Lower Saxony, Germany. 8. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand. 9. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, 3800, Australia. 10. Australian Synchrotron, ANSTO, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia. 11. Maroondah BreastScreen, EasternHealth, Ringwood, Victoria, 3135, Australia. 12. University of Trieste and INFN, 34149, Trieste, Italy. 13. The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, 2141, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the image quality of propagation-based phase-contrast computed tomography (PB-CT) using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) based on various radiological image quality criteria. METHODS: Eight excised breast tissue samples of various sizes and containing different lesion types were scanned using PB-CT at a synchrotron facility and using CBBCT at a university-affiliated breast imaging centre. PB-CT scans were performed at two different mean glandular dose (MGD) levels: standard (5.8 mGy) and low (1.5 mGy), for comparison with CBBCT scans at the standard MGD (5.8 mGy). Image quality assessment was carried out using six quality criteria and six independent medical imaging experts in a reading room with mammography workstations. The interobserver agreement between readers was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and image quality was compared between the two breast imaging modalities using the area under the visual grading characteristic curve (AUCVGC). RESULTS: Interobserver agreement between the readers showed moderate reliability for five image criteria (ICC: ranging from 0.488 to 0.633) and low reliability for one criterion (image noise) (ICC 0.307). For five image quality criteria (overall quality, perceptible contrast, lesion sharpness, normal tissue interfaces, and calcification visibility), both standard-dose PB-CT images (AUCVGC 0.958 to 1, p ≤ .05) and low dose PB-CT images (AUCVGC 0.785 to 0.834, p ≤ .05) were of significantly higher image quality than standard-dose CBBCT images. CONCLUSIONS: Synchrotron-based PB-CT can achieve a significantly higher radiological image quality at a substantially lower radiation dose compared with conventional CBBCT. KEY POINTS: • PB-CT using synchrotron radiation results in higher image quality than conventional CBBCT for breast imaging. • PB-CT using synchrotron radiation requires a lower radiation dose than conventional CBBCT for breast imaging. • PB-CT can help clinicians diagnose patients with breast cancer.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the image quality of propagation-based phase-contrast computed tomography (PB-CT) using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) based on various radiological image quality criteria. METHODS: Eight excised breast tissue samples of various sizes and containing different lesion types were scanned using PB-CT at a synchrotron facility and using CBBCT at a university-affiliated breast imaging centre. PB-CT scans were performed at two different mean glandular dose (MGD) levels: standard (5.8 mGy) and low (1.5 mGy), for comparison with CBBCT scans at the standard MGD (5.8 mGy). Image quality assessment was carried out using six quality criteria and six independent medical imaging experts in a reading room with mammography workstations. The interobserver agreement between readers was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and image quality was compared between the two breast imaging modalities using the area under the visual grading characteristic curve (AUCVGC). RESULTS: Interobserver agreement between the readers showed moderate reliability for five image criteria (ICC: ranging from 0.488 to 0.633) and low reliability for one criterion (image noise) (ICC 0.307). For five image quality criteria (overall quality, perceptible contrast, lesion sharpness, normal tissue interfaces, and calcification visibility), both standard-dose PB-CT images (AUCVGC 0.958 to 1, p ≤ .05) and low dose PB-CT images (AUCVGC 0.785 to 0.834, p ≤ .05) were of significantly higher image quality than standard-dose CBBCT images. CONCLUSIONS: Synchrotron-based PB-CT can achieve a significantly higher radiological image quality at a substantially lower radiation dose compared with conventional CBBCT. KEY POINTS: • PB-CT using synchrotron radiation results in higher image quality than conventional CBBCT for breast imaging. • PB-CT using synchrotron radiation requires a lower radiation dose than conventional CBBCT for breast imaging. • PB-CT can help clinicians diagnose patients with breast cancer.
Authors: S Pacilè; F Brun; C Dullin; Y I Nesterest; D Dreossi; S Mohammadi; M Tonutti; F Stacul; D Lockie; F Zanconati; A Accardo; G Tromba; T E Gureyev Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Melissa A Durand; Brian M Haas; Xiaopan Yao; Jaime L Geisel; Madhavi Raghu; Regina J Hooley; Laura J Horvath; Liane E Philpotts Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yunzhe Zhao; Emmanuel Brun; Paola Coan; Zhifeng Huang; Aniko Sztrókay; Paul Claude Diemoz; Susanne Liebhardt; Alberto Mittone; Sergei Gasilov; Jianwei Miao; Alberto Bravin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Posy Seifert; David Conover; Yan Zhang; Renee Morgan; Andrea Arieno; Stamatia Destounis; Patricia Somerville; Philip F Murphy Journal: Breast J Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Lorenzo Massimi; Tamara Suaris; Charlotte K Hagen; Marco Endrizzi; Peter R T Munro; Glafkos Havariyoun; P M Sam Hawker; Bennie Smit; Alberto Astolfo; Oliver J Larkin; Richard M Waltham; Zoheb Shah; Stephen W Duffy; Rachel L Nelan; Anthony Peel; J Louise Jones; Ian G Haig; David Bate; Alessandro Olivo Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 11.037