Comparison study of reconstruction algorithms for prototype digital breast tomosynthesis using various breast phantoms

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Ye-seul Kim ; Hye-suk Park ; Haeng-Hwa Lee ; Young-Wook Choi…
• 关键词：Digital breast tomosynthesis ; Filtered back ; projection ; Iterative reconstruction algorithm ; Anthropomorphic breast phantom
• 刊名：La radiologia medica
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：February 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：121
• 期：2
• 页码：81-92
• 全文大小：1,598 KB
• 参考文献：1.American Cancer Society (2014) Cancer facts and figures 2014. American Cancer Society, Atlanta
  2.Sundresh NJ, Narendran S, Gokul C, Ashwini T (2014) An epidemological study and management of early breast cancer. World J Pharm Pharm Sci 3(8):2036–2053
  3.Lee CH, Dershaw D, Kopans D et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7:18–27. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jacr.​2009.​09.​022 PubMed CrossRef
  4.Azar FS (2000) Imaging techniques for detecting breast cancer: survey and perspectives. Tech Rep (CIS) Pap 115. http://​repository.​upenn.​edu/​cis_​reports/​115
  5.David G, Gordon SA, Denise MC et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​08.​2031 CrossRef
  6.Steven PP, Tor DT, Christine AK, Helene MN (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​07.​2231 CrossRef
  7.Park JM et al (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. RadioGraphics 27:S231–S240. doi:10.​1148/​rg.​27si075511 PubMed CrossRef
  8.Dobbins JT III, Godfrey DJ (2003) Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 48:R65–R106PubMed CrossRef
  9.Sechopoulos I (2013) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys 40:014301. doi:10.​1118/​1.​4770279 PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
  10.Sechopoulos I (2013) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys 40(1):014302. doi:10.​1118/​1.​4770281 PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
  11.Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M et al (2003) Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 30:365–380. doi:10.​1118/​1.​1543934 PubMed CrossRef
  12.Zhang Y, Chan HP, Sahiner B (2006) A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33(10):3781–3795. doi:10.​1118/​1.​223754 PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
  13.Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, Kopans DB (2004) A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636–2647. doi:10.​1118/​1.​1786692 PubMed CrossRef
  14.Reiser I, Bian J, Nishikawa RM, Sidky EY, Pan X (2009) Comparison of reconstruction algorithms for digital breast tomosynthesis. Physics.med-ph. arXiv:0908.2610v1
  15.Dance DR, Young KC, Van Engen RE (2011) Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 56:453–471. doi:10.​1088/​0031-9155/​56/​2/​011 PubMed CrossRef
  16.Turbell H (2001) Cone-Beam reconstruction using filtered backprojection. Dissertation, Linkopings universitet
  17.Lauritsch G and Harer W (2011) A theoretical framework for filtered backprojection in tomosynthesis. SPIE 3338:1127–1137. http://​spiedl.​org/​terms
  18.Mertelmeier T, Orman J, Haerer W, Dudam MK (2006) Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device. SPIE 6142:61420F. doi:10.​1117/​12.​651380
  19.McLachlan GJ, Krishnan T (2008) The EM Algorithm and Extensions. Wiley, New JerseyCrossRef
  20.Kontos D, Bakic PR et al (2009) Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study. Acad Radiol 16(3):283–298. doi:10.​1016/​j.​acra.​2008.​08.​014 PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
  21.Kontos D, Ikejimba LC et al (2011) Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment. Radiology 261:80–91PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
  22.Park HS, Kim YS, Kim HJ et al (2013) Optimization of configuration parameters in a newly developed digital breast tomosynthesis system. J Radiat Res. doi:10.​1093/​jrr/​rrt130
  23.Park HS, Kim YS et al (2014) Experimental investigation for determination of optimal X-ray beam tube voltages in a newly developed digital breast tomosynthesis system. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Re A 763:163–169CrossRef
  24.Young S, Park S, Anderson SK, Badano A, Myers KJ, Bakic P (2009) Estimating breast tomosynthesis performance in detection tasks with variable-background phantoms. Proc SPIE 7258:72580O–72589O. doi:10.​1117/​12.​813900 CrossRef
  25.Byng JW, Mainprize JG, Yaffe MJ (1998) X-ray characterization of breast phantom materials. Phys Med Biol 43:1367–1377PubMed CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Ye-seul Kim (1)
  Hye-suk Park (1)
  Haeng-Hwa Lee (1)
  Young-Wook Choi (2)
  Jae-Gu Choi (2)
  Hak Hee Kim (3)
  Hee-Joung Kim (1)
  
  1. Department of Radiological Science and Research Institute of Health Science, Yonsei University, 1 Yonseidae-gil, Wonju, Gangwon, Korea
  2. Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute (KERI), Ansan, Korea
  3. Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
  
• 刊物主题：Imaging / Radiology; Diagnostic Radiology; Interventional Radiology; Neuroradiology; Ultrasound;
• 出版者：Springer Milan
• ISSN：1826-6983

文摘

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a recently developed system for three-dimensional imaging that offers the potential to reduce the false positives of mammography by preventing tissue overlap. Many qualitative evaluations of digital breast tomosynthesis were previously performed by using a phantom with an unrealistic model and with heterogeneous background and noise, which is not representative of real breasts. The purpose of the present work was to compare reconstruction algorithms for DBT by using various breast phantoms; validation was also performed by using patient images. DBT was performed by using a prototype unit that was optimized for very low exposures and rapid readout. Three algorithms were compared: a back-projection (BP) algorithm, a filtered BP (FBP) algorithm, and an iterative expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. To compare the algorithms, three types of breast phantoms (homogeneous background phantom, heterogeneous background phantom, and anthropomorphic breast phantom) were evaluated, and clinical images were also reconstructed by using the different reconstruction algorithms. The in-plane image quality was evaluated based on the line profile and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and out-of-plane artifacts were evaluated by means of the artifact spread function (ASF). Parenchymal texture features of contrast and homogeneity were computed based on reconstructed images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom. The clinical images were studied to validate the effect of reconstruction algorithms. The results showed that the CNRs of masses reconstructed by using the EM algorithm were slightly higher than those obtained by using the BP algorithm, whereas the FBP algorithm yielded much lower CNR due to its high fluctuations of background noise. The FBP algorithm provides the best conspicuity for larger calcifications by enhancing their contrast and sharpness more than the other algorithms; however, in the case of small-size and low-contrast microcalcifications, the FBP reduced detectability due to its increased noise. The EM algorithm yielded high conspicuity for both microcalcifications and masses and yielded better ASFs in terms of the full width at half maximum. The higher contrast and lower homogeneity in terms of texture analysis were shown in FBP algorithm than in other algorithms. The patient images using the EM algorithm resulted in high visibility of low-contrast mass with clear border. In this study, we compared three reconstruction algorithms by using various kinds of breast phantoms and patient cases. Future work using these algorithms and considering the type of the breast and the acquisition techniques used (e.g., angular range, dose distribution) should include the use of actual patients or patient-like phantoms to increase the potential for practical applications.