Premium
TU‐CD‐207‐12: Impact of Anatomical Noise On Detection Performance of Microcalcifications in Multi‐Contrast Breast Imaging
Author(s) -
Garrett J,
Ge Y,
Li K,
Chen G
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4925631
Subject(s) - mammography , breast imaging , nuclear medicine , materials science , contrast to noise ratio , medicine , medical imaging , contrast (vision) , radiology , image quality , physics , optics , breast cancer , computer science , artificial intelligence , cancer , image (mathematics)
Purpose: The anatomical noise power spectra (NPS) for differential phase contrast (DPC) and dark field (DF) imaging have recently been characterized using a power‐law model with two parameters, alpha and beta, an innovative extension to the methodology used in x‐ray attenuation based breast imaging such as mammography, DBT, or cone‐beam CT. Beta values of 3.6, 2.6, and 1.3 have been measured for absorption, DPC, and DF respectively for cadaver breasts imaged in the coronal plane; these dramatic differences should be reflected in their detection performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of anatomical noise on breast calcification detection and compare the detection performance of the three contrast mechanisms of a multi‐contrast x‐ray imaging system. Methods: In our studies, a calcification image object was segmented out of the multi‐contrast images of a cadaver breast specimen. 50 measured total NPS were measured from breast cadavers directly. The ideal model observer detectability was calculated for a range of doses (5–100%) and a range of calcification sizes (diameter = 0.25–2.5 mm). Results: Overall we found the highest average detectability corresponded to DPC imaging (7.4 for 1 mm calc.), with DF the next highest (3.8 for 1 mm calc.), and absorption the lowest (3.2 for 1 mm calc.). However, absorption imaging also showed the slowest dependence on dose of the three modalities due to the significant anatomical noise. DPC showed a peak detectability for calcifications ∼1.25 mm in diameter, DF showed a peak for calcifications around 0.75 mm in diameter, and absorption imaging had no such peak in the range explored. Conclusion: Understanding imaging performance for DPC and DF is critical to transition these modalities to the clinic. The results presented here offer new insight into how these modalities complement absorption imaging to maximize the likelihood of detecting early breast cancers. J. Garrett, Y. Ge, K. Li: Nothing to disclose. G.‐H. Chen: Research funded, GE Healthcare; Research funded, Siemens AX.