Point/Counterpoint. Cone beam x-ray CT will be superior to digital x-ray tomosynthesis in imaging the breast and delineating cancer.

Radiology Department, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01655, USA.
Medical Physics (Impact Factor: 2.64). 03/2008; 35(2):409-11. DOI: 10.1118/1.2825612
Source: PubMed


Scitation is the online home of leading journals and conference proceedings from AIP Publishing and AIP Member Societies

Download full-text


Available from: Colin G Orton, Oct 07, 2015
13 Reads
  • Source
    • "In addition to being difficult for mobility challenged individuals, this positioning makes it difficult to effectively image the chest wall and axilla area [25]. Although dedicated breast CT [6] [30] [32] is being investigated as a viable breast imaging technique, many issues still remain to be addressed before it can be introduced in the clinical realm. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Digital tomosynthesis imaging is becoming increasingly significant in a variety of medical imaging applications. Tomosynthesis imaging involves the acquisition of a series of projection images over a limited angular range, which, after reconstruction, results in a pseudo-3D representation of the imaged object. The partial separation of features in the third dimension improves the visibility of lesions of interest by reducing the eect of the superimposition of tissues. In breast cancer imaging, tomosynthesis is a viable alternative to standard mammography; however, current algorithms for image reconstruction do not take into account the polyenergetic nature of the x-ray source beam entering the object. This results in inaccuracies in the reconstruction, making quantitative analysis challenging and allowing for beam hardening artifacts. In this paper, we develop a mathematical framework based on a polyenergetic model and develop statistically based iterative methods for digital tomosynthesis reconstruction for breast imaging. By applying our algorithms to simulated data, we illustrate the success of our methods in suppressing beam hardening artifacts, and thus improving the quality of the reconstruction.
    SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 01/2010; 3(1):133-152. DOI:10.1137/090749633 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Here is a sampling (cf. (Suri, Rangayyan & Laxminarayan, 2006)) of mostly recent references to an undoubtedly incomplete list of the incredible variety of physics being (or perhaps that should be) applied to breast imaging: • CT laser mammography (Yee, 2009) • EIT (Electrical Impedance Tomography) (Cherepenin et al., 2002; Prasad & Houserkova, 2007; Chen et al., 2008; Halter, Hartov & Paulsen, 2008; Steiner, Soleimani & Watzenig, 2008; Ye et al., 2008), including current reconstruction magnetic resonance EIT (Gao & He, 2008; Ng et al., 2008) and EIT spectroscopy (EIS) (Choi et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2007a; Poplack et al., 2007; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008) • Microwave imaging (Fang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2008; Hand, 2008; Kanj & Popovic, 2008; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008; Pramanik et al., 2008), radar (Poyvasi et al., 2005; Flores-Tapia, Thomas & Pistorius, 2008), microwave imaging spectroscopy (MIS) (Poplack et al., 2007; Lazebnik et al., 2008) and dual polarization methods (Woten & El-Shenawee, 2008) • Microwave-induced thermoacoustic scanning CT (Nie et al., 2008) • Molecular and nanoparticle imaging (Rayavarapu et al., 2007), including quantum dots (Park & Ikeda, 2006; Chang et al., 2008) • MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) (Kuhl, Schild & Morakkabati, 2005; Park & Ikeda, 2006; Brenner & Parisky, 2007; Kim et al., 2007b; Hand, 2008; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008; Yee, 2009) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) (Smith & Andreopoulou, 2004) • Multi-frequency trans-admittance scanning (TAS) (Oh et al., 2007) • Near-infrared spectral tomography (NIR) (Poplack et al., 2007) • Neutron stimulated emission computed tomography (Bender et al., 2007) • Optical imaging (Huang & Zhu, 2004; Park & Ikeda, 2006; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008; Konovalov et al., 2008; Lazebnik et al., 2008; Fang et al., 2009) including transillumination (Blyschak et al., 2004; Simick et al., 2004) • PET (Positron Emission Tomography)or PEM (Positron Emission Mammography) and PET/CT (Pawlak & Gordon, 2005; Jan et al., 2006; Park & Ikeda, 2006; Aliaga et al., 2007; Brenner & Parisky, 2007; Prasad & Houserkova, 2007; Shibata et al., 2007; Tafra, 2007; Thie, 2007; Yang, Cho & Moon, 2007; Zhang et al., 2007; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008; Bowen et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2009; Yee, 2009), perhaps combined in MagPET with strong magnetic fields to constrain the range of the positrons before annihilation (Iida et al., 1986; Rickey, Gordon & Huda, 1992; Hammer, Christensen & Heil, 1994; Burdette et al., 2009), which could be used to increase the resolution of PET/MRI (Cherry, Louie & Jacobs, 2008; Judenhofer et al., 2008) • Photoacoustic tomography (Pramanik et al., 2008) • Proton and heavy ion CT (IonCT) (Holley et al., 1981a; Holley et al., 1981b; Muraishi et al., 2009) • SPECT (Single Photon Emission CT) (More et al., 2007; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008) and scintimammography (McKinley et al., 2006; Li et al., 2007; Prasad & Houserkova, 2007; Spanu et al., 2007; Thie, 2007) • SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) (Anninos et al., 2000) and SQUID MRI (Clarke, Hatridge & Mössle, 2007) • Thermoacoustic tomography (Pramanik et al., 2008) • Tomosynthesis (Karellas, Lo & Orton, 2008; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008; Dobbins, 2009; Gur et al., 2009; Yee, 2009) • Ultrasound (US) (Huang & Zhu, 2004; Brenner & Parisky, 2007; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008; Yee, 2009) • Ultrasound elasticity imaging (elastography) (Bagchi, 2007; Garra, 2007) and vibro-acoustography (Alizad et al., 2005; Silva, Frery & Fatemi, 2006) • Ultrasound reflection tomography (Steiner, Soleimani & Watzenig, 2008) • X-ray CT by diffraction-enhanced or phase sensitive imaging (Bravin et al., 2007; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008; Zhou & Brahme, 2008; Kao et al., 2009; Parham et al., 2009) • X-ray CT using scattered photons with energy discrimination (Van Uytven, Pistorius & Gordon, 2007; Van Uytven, Pistorius & Gordon, 2008) • X-ray CT (Chen & Ning, 2003; McKinley et al., 2006; Kalender & Kyriakou, 2007; Kwan et al., 2007; Li et al., 2007; Karellas, Lo & Orton, 2008; Karellas & Vedantham, 2008; Lindfors et al., 2008; Nelsona et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2008; Yee, 2009), potentially with monochromatic (McKinley et al., 2004) or dual energy imaging (Kappadath & Shaw, 2005; Bliznakova, Kolitsi & Pallikarakis, 2006), especially using synchrotron radiation (Fabbri et al., 2002; Pani et al., 2004) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tibor Tot has given me an unusual opportunity via his request to summarize my work in computed tomography (CT), which indeed since 1977 has been directed toward eliminating the scourge of breast cancer via search and destroy of premetastasis tumors, instead of the predominant, century-old magic bullet approach (Strebhardt and Ullrich 2008). I have had the strange career of a theoretical biologist (Fig. 10.1) on a continent where theoretical biology as a paid discipline died with James F. Danielli, discoverer of the bilayer structure of the cell membrane, and once Director of the Center for Theoretical Biology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and founding editor of the Journal of Theoretical Biology (JTB) (Danielli 1961; Rosen 1985; Stein 1986). Danielli became part of my story, which I will tell in the spirit of the wonderful biography of Louis Pasteur written by his lifetime laboratory assistant (Duclaux 1920). Lacking such a long-term companion to my train of thought, this shall have to be unabashedly autobiographical, with all the risks attendant to that form of literature. I shall try to be honest to you, the reader, and true to myself. If we consider the vast gossamer of activity in science, and CT in particular, my own path is but one thread through that web, but the one I know best. Nevertheless, when I use “I,” please take it as shorthand for “I and my cited collaborators” where appropriate. My world line has crossed that of many others, who have enriched my journey, and made it possible. This includes George Gamow, Mr. World Line himself (Gamow 1970), both of us sitting in on a meteorology course in Boulder, Colorado about 1968, and later his son Igor at Woods Hole and Boulder regarding trying to model the growth of Phycomyces (Ortega et al. 1974).
    01/1970: pages 167-203;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different acquisition parameters and to determine the optimal set of acquisition parameters of projection views (PVs) for the new developed digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) system. The DBT imaging parameters were optimized using 32 different acquisition sets with six angular ranges (±5°, ±10°, ±13°, ±17°, ±21°, and ±25°) and eight projection views (5, 11, 15, 21, 25, 31, 41, and 51 prjections). In addition to the contrastto-noise ratio (CNR), the artifact spread function (ASF) was used to quantify the in-focus plane artifacts along the z-direction in order to explore the relationship between the acquisition parameters and the image quality. A commercially, available breast-mimicking phantom was imaged to qualitatively verify our results. Our results show that a wide angular range improved the reconstructed image quality in the z-direction. If a large number of projections are acquired, then the electronic noise may dominate the CNR due to reduce the radiation dose per projection. Although increasing angular range was found to improve the vertical resolution, due to greater effective breast thickness, the image quality of microcalcifications in the in-focus plane was also found not to be improved by increasing the noise. Therefore, potential trade-offs of these physical imaging properties must be considered to optimize the acquisition configuration of a DBT system. Our results suggest possible directions for further improvements in DBT systems for high quality imaging.
    Journal- Korean Physical Society 12/2012; 61(11). DOI:10.3938/jkps.61.1877 · 0.42 Impact Factor
Show more