A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis.

Digital tomosynthesis mammography (DTM) is a promising new modality for breast cancer detection. In DTM, projection-view images are acquired at a limited number of angles over a limited angular range and the imaged volume is reconstructed from the two-dimensional projections, thus providing three-dimensional structural information of the breast tissue. In this work, we investigated three representative reconstruction methods for this limited-angle cone-beam tomographic problem, including the backprojection (BP) method, the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) and the maximum likelihood method with the convex algorithm (ML-convex). The SART and ML-convex methods were both initialized with BP results to achieve efficient reconstruction. A second generation GE prototype tomosynthesis mammography system with a stationary digital detector was used for image acquisition. Projection-view images were acquired from 21 angles in 3 degrees increments over a +/- 30 degrees angular range. We used an American College of Radiology phantom and designed three additional phantoms to evaluate the image quality and reconstruction artifacts. In addition to visual comparison of the reconstructed images of different phantom sets, we employed the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), a line profile of features, an artifact spread function (ASF), a relative noise power spectrum (NPS), and a line object spread function (LOSF) to quantitatively evaluate the reconstruction results. It was found that for the phantoms with homogeneous background, the BP method resulted in less noisy tomosynthesized images and higher CNR values for masses than the SART and ML-convex methods. However, the two iterative methods provided greater contrast enhancement for both masses and calcification, sharper LOSF, and reduced interplane blurring and artifacts with better ASF behaviors for masses. For a contrast-detail phantom with heterogeneous tissue-mimicking background, the BP method had strong blurring artifacts along the x-ray source motion direction that obscured the contrast-detail objects, while the other two methods can remove the superimposed breast structures and significantly improve object conspicuity. With a properly selected relaxation parameter, the SART method with one iteration can provide tomosynthesized images comparable to those obtained from the ML-convex method with seven iterations, when BP results were used as initialization for both methods.

[1]  Tor D Tosteson,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[3]  Ian Shaw,et al.  Design and performance of the prototype full field breast tomosynthesis system with selenium based flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[4]  James T. Dobbins,et al.  Initial application of digital tomosynthesis with on-board imaging in radiation oncology , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[5]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[6]  Tao Wu,et al.  A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. , 2004, Medical physics.

[7]  Kenneth E. Barner,et al.  Algebraic tomosynthesis reconstruction , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[8]  David Kaeli,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis mammography using a parallel maximum-likelihood reconstruction method , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[9]  James T Dobbins,et al.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  Douglas Albagli,et al.  Performance of advanced a-Si/CsI-based flat-panel x-ray detectors for mammography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[11]  D. Kopans,et al.  Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. , 2003, Medical physics.

[12]  Jeffrey W. Eberhard,et al.  New method for 3D reconstruction in digital tomosynthesis , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  Biao Chen,et al.  Cone-beam volume CT breast imaging: feasibility study. , 2002, Medical physics.

[14]  P. Bleuet,et al.  An adapted fan volume sampling scheme for 3-D algebraic reconstruction in linear tomosynthesis , 2001 .

[15]  Yu Cheng,et al.  Measurement of the noise power spectrum in digital x-ray detectors , 2001 .

[16]  C J D'Orsi,et al.  Evaluation of linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods in digital mammography. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[17]  C J D'Orsi,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[18]  James T. Dobbins,et al.  Applications of matrix inversion tomosynthesis , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[19]  James T. Dobbins,et al.  Applications of matrix inverse tomosynthesis , 2000 .

[20]  M. Williams,et al.  Noise power spectra of images from digital mammography detectors. , 1999, Medical physics.

[21]  Hua Qian,et al.  CCD-based detector for full-field digital mammography , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[22]  R. Gordon,et al.  Combining various projection access schemes with the algebraic reconstruction technique for low-contrast detection in computed tomography , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  Günter Lauritsch,et al.  Theoretical framework for filtered back projection in tomosynthesis , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[24]  Charles L. Byrne,et al.  Accelerating the EMML algorithm and related iterative algorithms by rescaled block-iterative methods , 1998, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[25]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[26]  H. Blume,et al.  DQE(f) of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices. , 1995, Medical physics.

[27]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Ieee Transactions on Image Processing: to Appear Globally Convergent Algorithms for Maximum a Posteriori Transmission Tomography , 2022 .

[28]  R. Gordon,et al.  A projection access order for speedy convergence of ART (algebraic reconstruction technique): a multilevel scheme for computed tomography , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[30]  G Panayiotakis,et al.  A method for selective removal of out-of-plane structures in digital tomosynthesis. , 1993, Medical physics.

[31]  Hiroshi Matsuo,et al.  Three-dimensional image reconstruction by digital tomo-synthesis using inverse filtering , 1993, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[32]  Gabor T. Herman,et al.  Algebraic reconstruction techniques can be made computationally efficient [positron emission tomography application] , 1993, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[33]  G Panayiotakis,et al.  A multiple projection method for digital tomosynthesis. , 1992, Medical physics.

[34]  A. H. Andersen Algebraic reconstruction in CT from limited views. , 1989, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[35]  P Haaker,et al.  A new digital tomosynthesis method with less artifacts for angiography. , 1985, Medical physics.

[36]  M. Giger,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 2. Noise Wiener spectrum. , 1984, Medical physics.

[37]  L. Feldkamp,et al.  Practical cone-beam algorithm , 1984 .

[38]  K. Lange,et al.  EM reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography. , 1984, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[39]  A. Kak,et al.  Simultaneous Algebraic Reconstruction Technique (SART): A Superior Implementation of the Art Algorithm , 1984, Ultrasonic imaging.

[40]  D. G. Grant Tomosynthesis: a three-dimensional radiographic imaging technique. , 1972, IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering.

[41]  E. Miller,et al.  An infinite number of laminagrams from a finite number of radiographs. , 1971, Radiology.

[42]  G. Herman,et al.  Algebraic reconstruction techniques (ART) for three-dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography. , 1970, Journal of theoretical biology.

[43]  R. J. Johns,et al.  Three dimensional roentgenography. , 1969, The American journal of roentgenology, radium therapy, and nuclear medicine.

[44]  B. G. Ziedses des Plantes,et al.  Eine Neue Methode Zur Differenzierung in der Rontgenographie (Planigraphies) , 1932 .