| Literature DB >> 33060795 |
Piernicola Oliva1,2, Vittorio Di Trapani3,4, Fulvia Arfelli5,6, Luca Brombal5,6, Sandro Donato7,8,9, Bruno Golosio2,10, Renata Longo5,6, Giovanni Mettivier11,12, Luigi Rigon5,6, Angelo Taibi13,14, Giuliana Tromba9, Fabrizio Zanconati15, Pasquale Delogu16,17.
Abstract
Breast Computed Tomography (bCT) is a three-dimensional imaging technique that is raising interest among radiologists as a viable alternative to mammographic planar imaging. In X-rays imaging it would be desirable to maximize the capability of discriminating different tissues, described by the Contrast to Noise Ratio (CNR), while minimizing the dose (i.e. the radiological risk). Both dose and CNR are functions of the X-ray energy. This work aims at experimentally investigating the optimal energy that, at fixed dose, maximizes the CNR between glandular and adipose tissues. Acquisitions of both tissue-equivalent phantoms and actual breast specimens have been performed with the bCT system implemented within the Syrma-3D collaboration at the Syrmep beamline of the Elettra synchrotron (Trieste). The experimental data have been also compared with analytical simulations and the results are in agreement. The CNR is maximized at energies around 26-28 keV. These results are in line with the outcomes of a previously presented simulation study which determined an optimal energy of 28 keV for a large set of breast phantoms with different diameters and glandular fractions. Finally, a study on photon starvation has been carried out to investigate how far the dose can be reduced still having suitable images for diagnostics.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33060795 PMCID: PMC7567093 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74607-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Calculated linear attenuation coefficients. Left: CIRS materials (adipose- and glandular-equivalent, experimental data). Right: Polyethylene (experimental and tabulated data). Standard errors are reported for experimental data, but they are not visible in the figure.
Figure 2Comparison of CNR for absorption images, calculated from analytical simulation and experimental images. Left: P1 phantom (adipose/glandular, diameter 7 cm). Right: P2 phantom (polyethylene/glandular phantom, diameter 12 cm). The diameter of the glandular detail is 1 cm for both phantoms.
Figure 3Comparison of CNR for phase-retrieved images, calculated from analytical simulation and experimental images. Left: P1 phantom (adipose/glandular, diameter 7 cm). Right: P2 phantom (polyethylene/glandular phantom, diameter 12 cm). The diameter of the glandular detail is 1 cm for both phantoms.
Figure 4CNR (measured on experimental images) for absorption image and phase-retrieved one, for P1 (left panel) and P2 (right panel) phantoms. CNR for absorption images and for phase-retrieved ones are reported in the same plot with different scales.
Figure 5CNR as a function of energy for the T1 sample. Experimental data (solid square) and simulations (hollow circle).
Figure 6CNR for breast tissue T2, experimental (solid squares) and simulated (hollow circles).
Figure 7CNR for breast tissue T3, experimental (solid squares) and simulated (hollow circles).
Figure 8Reconstructed slices for breast sample T1 at the different mean glandular doses. Top, from left to right: 0.125, 0.25, 0.5 mGy. Bottom, from left to right: 2, 5 and 20 mGy.
Figure 9Reconstructed slices for breast sample T3 at the different mean glandular doses. Top, from left to right: 1, 2.5, 5 mGy. Bottom, from left to right: 7.5, 10 and 20 mGy.
Figure 10CNR (left) and percentage of zero-value pixels (right) for the two breast samples T1 (at 22 keV) and T3 (at 28 keV), expressed as a function of the minimum number of counts.