Task-based performance analysis of FBP, SART and ML for digital breast tomosynthesis using signal CNR and Channelised Hotelling Observers

We assess the performance of filtered backprojection (FBP), the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) and the maximum likelihood (ML) algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) under variations in key imaging parameters, including the number of iterations, number of projections, angular range, initial guess, and radiation dose. This is the first study to compare these algorithms for the application of DBT. We present a methodology for the evaluation of DBT reconstructions, and use it to conduct preliminary experiments investigating trade-offs between the selected imaging parameters. This investigation includes trade-offs not previously considered in the DBT literature, such as the use of a stationary detector versus a C-arm imaging geometry. A real breast CT volume serves as a ground truth digital phantom from which to simulate X-ray projections under the various acquisition parameters. The reconstructed image quality is measured using task-based metrics, namely signal CNR and the AUC of a Channelised Hotelling Observer with Laguerre-Gauss basis functions. The task at hand is the detection of a simulated mass inserted into the breast CT volume. We find that the image quality in limited view tomography is highly dependent on the particular acquisition and reconstruction parameters used. In particular, we draw the following conclusions. First, we find that optimising the FBP filter design and SART relaxation parameter yields significant improvements in reconstruction quality from the same projection data. Second, we show that the convergence rate of the maximum likelihood algorithm, optimised with paraboloidal surrogates and conjugate gradient ascent (ML-PSCG), can be greatly accelerated using view-by-view updates. Third, we find that the optimal initial guess is algorithm dependent. In particular, we obtained best results with a zero initial guess for SART, and an FBP initial guess for ML-PSCG. Fourth, when the exposure per view is constant, increasing the total number of views within a given angular range improves the reconstruction quality, albeit with diminishing returns. When the total dose of all views combined is constant, there is a trade-off between increased sampling using a larger number of views and increased levels of quantum noise in each view. Fifth, we do not observe significant differences when testing various access ordering schemes, presumably due to the limited angular range of DBT. Sixth, we find that adjusting the z-resolution of the reconstruction can improve image quality, but that this resolution is best adjusted by using post-reconstruction binning, rather than by declaring lower-resolution voxels. Seventh, we find that the C-arm configuration yields higher image quality than a stationary detector geometry, the difference being most outspoken for the FBP algorithm. Lastly, we find that not all prototype systems found in the literature are currently being run under the best possible system or algorithm configurations. In other words, the present study demonstrates the critical importance (and reward) of using optimisation methodologies such as the one presented here to maximise the DBT reconstruction quality from a single scan of the patient.

[1]  Emil Y. Sidky,et al.  Development of an Analytic Breast Phantom for Quantitative Comparison of Reconstruction Algorithms for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

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

[3]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Application of boundary detection information in breast tomosynthesis reconstruction. , 2007, Medical physics.

[4]  Hakan Erdogan,et al.  Monotonic algorithms for transmission tomography , 2002, 5th IEEE EMBS International Summer School on Biomedical Imaging, 2002..

[5]  Alvaro R. De Pierro,et al.  A modified expectation maximization algorithm for penalized likelihood estimation in emission tomography , 1995, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[6]  Aruna A. Vedula,et al.  A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. , 2006, Medical physics.

[7]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Validating the use of channels to estimate the ideal linear observer. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[8]  J. Baker,et al.  A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system. , 2008, Medical physics.

[9]  Heang-Ping Chan,et al.  Investigation of Different PV Distributions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) Mammography , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[10]  David Gavaghan,et al.  Predicting Tumour Location by Simulating Large Deformations of the Breast Using a 3D Finite Element Model and Nonlinear Elasticity , 2004, MICCAI.

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

[12]  N. Pelc,et al.  Filtered backprojection for modifying the impulse response of circular tomosynthesis. , 2001, Medical physics.

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

[14]  P. Gilbert Iterative methods for the three-dimensional reconstruction of an object from projections. , 1972, Journal of theoretical biology.

[15]  Dominique Van de Sompel,et al.  Progress Toward a Quantitative Scale for Describing Radiodensity in Mammographic Images , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

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

[17]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Accelerated monotonic algorithms for transmission tomography , 1998, Proceedings 1998 International Conference on Image Processing. ICIP98 (Cat. No.98CB36269).

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

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

[20]  John M. Boone Spectral modeling and compilation of quantum fluence in radiography and mammography , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[21]  Andrew Maidment,et al.  Evaluation of a photon-counting breast tomosynthesis imaging system , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[22]  A E Burgess,et al.  The Rose model, revisited. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[23]  Rebecca Fahrig,et al.  Analysis of lung nodule detectability and anatomical clutter in tomosynthesis imaging of the chest , 2009, Medical Imaging.

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

[25]  Ralph Highnam,et al.  The Breast Biomechanics Reference State for Multi-modal Image Analysis , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[26]  Richard L. Van Metter,et al.  Handbook of Medical Imaging , 2009 .

[27]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of a Photon-Counting Tomosynthesis Mammography System , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[28]  Jay Bartroff,et al.  Automated computer evaluation and optimization of image compression of x-ray coronary angiograms for signal known exactly detection tasks. , 2003, Optics express.

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

[30]  Rolf Clackdoyle,et al.  CHAPTER 20 – Analytic Image Reconstruction Methods , 2004 .

[31]  Bo Zhao,et al.  A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. , 2007, Medical physics.

[32]  Gene Gindi,et al.  Low-contrast lesion detection in tomosynthetic breast imaging using a realistic breast phantom , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[33]  A. R. De Pierro,et al.  On the relation between the ISRA and the EM algorithm for positron emission tomography , 1993, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[34]  Tao Wu,et al.  Lesion Visibility in Low Dose Tomosynthesis , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[35]  H. Hotelling The Generalization of Student’s Ratio , 1931 .

[36]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. I. Breast tissue model and image acquisition simulation. , 2002, Medical physics.

[37]  Dmitry B. Goldgof,et al.  3D Finite Element Modeling of Nonrigid Breast Deformation for Feature Registration in -ray and MR Images , 2007, 2007 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV '07).

[38]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Detection of Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Mammography: Effects of the Number of Projection Views and Dose , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[39]  Rebecca Fahrig,et al.  Optimization of a tomosynthesis system for the detection of lung nodules. , 2006, Medical physics.

[40]  K Bliznakova,et al.  A three-dimensional breast software phantom for mammography simulation. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[42]  Selin Carkaci,et al.  Dedicated cone-beam breast CT: feasibility study with surgical mastectomy specimens. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[44]  David Ingram,et al.  Simulated Mammography Using Synthetic 3D Breasts , 1998, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[45]  Serge Muller,et al.  Preference Study of Reconstructed Image Quality in Mammographic Tomosynthesis , 2003 .

[46]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[47]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Tomosynthesis reconstruction using the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) on breast phantom data , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[48]  James G. Mainprize,et al.  Evaluating the Effect of Dose on Reconstructed Image Quality in Digital Tomosynthesis , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[49]  Spencer Gunn,et al.  Introducing DeBRa: a detailed breast model for radiological studies. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[50]  Heang-Ping Chan,et al.  Generalized Filtered Back-Projection Reconstruction in Breast Tomosynthesis , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[51]  Dmitry B. Goldgof,et al.  Towards registration of temporal mammograms by finite element simulation of MR breast volumes , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[52]  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.

[53]  R L Siddon,et al.  Calculation of the radiological depth. , 1985, Medical physics.

[54]  Christoph Hoeschen,et al.  A high-resolution voxel phantom of the breast for dose calculations in mammography. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[55]  Avinash C. Kak,et al.  Principles of computerized tomographic imaging , 2001, Classics in applied mathematics.

[56]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Adaptation of Image Quality Using Various Filter Setups in the Filtered Backprojection Approach for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

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

[58]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Channelized-ideal observer using Laguerre-Gauss channels in detection tasks involving non-Gaussian distributed lumpy backgrounds and a Gaussian signal. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[59]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  A Novel Approach for Filtered Backprojection in Tomosynthesis Based on Filter Kernels Determined by Iterative Reconstruction Techniques , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[60]  Michael Brady,et al.  Task-based performance analysis of SART for digital breast tomosynthesis using signal CNR and channelised Hotelling observers , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[61]  E Samei,et al.  Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs. , 1999, Radiology.

[62]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  A New Validation Method for X-ray Mammogram Registration Algorithms Using a Projection Model of Breast X-ray Compression , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[63]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Estimating breast tomosynthesis performance in detection tasks with variable-background phantoms , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[64]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Stabilized estimates of Hotelling-observer detection performance in patient-structured noise , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[65]  Serge Muller,et al.  Thick Slices from Tomosynthesis Data Sets: Phantom Study for the Evaluation of Different Algorithms , 2007, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[66]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  Physics and psychophysics , 2000 .

[67]  Gang Wu,et al.  Characterization of Projection Ordering in Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Breast Tomosynthesis , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[68]  Olli Nevalainen,et al.  Algorithmic 3D simulation of breast calcifications for digital mammography , 2001, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

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