Techniques and evaluation from a cross-platform imaging comparison of quantitative ultrasound parameters in an in vivo rodent fibroadenoma model

This contribution demonstrates that quantitative ultrasound (QUS) capabilities are platform independent, using an in vivo model. Frequency-dependent attenuation estimates, backscatter coefficient, and effective scatterer diameter estimates are shown to be comparable across four different ultrasound imaging systems with varied processing techniques. The backscatter coefficient (BSC) is a fundamental material property from which several QUS parameters are estimated; therefore, consistent BSC estimates among different systems must be demonstrated. This study is an intercomparison of BSC estimates acquired by three research groups (UIUC, UW, ISU) from four in vivo spontaneous rat mammary fibroadenomas using three clinical array systems and a single-element laboratory scanner system. Because of their highly variable backscatter properties, fibroadenomas provided an extreme test case for BSC analysis, and the comparison is across systems for each tumor, not across the highly heterogeneous tumors. RF echo data spanning the 1 to 12 MHz frequency range were acquired in three dimensions from all animals using each system. Each research group processed their RF data independently, and the resulting attenuation, BSC, and effective scatterer diameter (ESD) estimates were compared. The attenuation estimates across all systems showed the same trends and consistently fit the power-law dependence on frequency. BSCs varied among the multiple slices of data acquired by each transducer, with variations between transducers being of a similar magnitude as those from slice to slice. Variation between BSC estimates was assessed via functional signal-to-noise ratios derived from backscatter data. These functional signal-to-noise ratios indicated that BSC versus frequency variations between systems ranged from negligible compared with the noise level to roughly twice the noise level. The corresponding functional analysis of variance (fANOVA) indicated statistically significant differences between BSC curves from different systems. However, root mean squared difference errors of the BSC values (in decibels) between different transducers and imaging platforms were less than half of the BSC magnitudes in most cases. Statistical comparison of the effective scatterer diameter (ESD) estimates resulted in no significant differences in estimates from three of the four transducers used for those estimates, demonstrating agreement among estimates based on the BSC. This technical advance demonstrates that these in vivo measurements can be made in a system-independent manner; the necessary step toward clinical implementation of the technology.

[1]  T. Varghese,et al.  Statistics of ultrasonic scatterer size estimation with a reference phantom. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Goutam Ghoshal,et al.  On the estimation of backscatter coefficients using single-element focused transducers. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  E. Madsen,et al.  Ultrasonic backscatter coefficients for weakly scattering, agar spheres in agar phantoms. , 2010, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  V. Reuter,et al.  Typing of prostate tissue by ultrasonic spectrum analysis , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[5]  E. Madsen,et al.  Interlaboratory Comparison of Backscatter Coefficient Estimates for Tissue-Mimicking Phantoms: , 2010 .

[6]  G G Cox,et al.  Ultrasonic measurement of glomerular diameters in normal adult humans. , 1996, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[7]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[8]  L. X. Yao,et al.  Backscatter Coefficient Measurements Using a Reference Phantom to Extract Depth-Dependent Instrumentation Factors , 1990, Ultrasonic imaging.

[9]  Tomy Varghese,et al.  Stability of heterogeneous elastography phantoms made from oil dispersions in aqueous gels. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[10]  William D. O'Brien,et al.  Differentiation and characterization of rat mammary fibroadenomas and 4T1 mouse carcinomas using quantitative ultrasound imaging , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Julian J. Faraway,et al.  An F test for linear models with functional responses , 2004 .

[12]  E J Feleppa,et al.  Diagnostic spectrum analysis in ophthalmology: a physical perspective. , 1986, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[13]  H. Ermert,et al.  An ultrasound research interface for a clinical system , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[14]  G G Cox,et al.  Effects of endothelin-1 on renal microvasculature measured using quantitative ultrasound. , 1995, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[15]  Yassin Labyed,et al.  Cross‐Imaging Platform Comparison of Ultrasonic Backscatter Coefficient Measurements of Live Rat Tumors , 2010, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[16]  B. Silverman,et al.  Functional Data Analysis , 1997 .

[17]  E. Madsen,et al.  Interlaboratory Comparison of Ultrasonic Backscatter Coefficient Measurements From 2 to 9 MHz , 2005, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[18]  M. Oelze,et al.  Examination of cancer in mouse models using high-frequency quantitative ultrasound. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[19]  E. Feleppa,et al.  Relationship of Ultrasonic Spectral Parameters to Features of Tissue Microstructure , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[20]  Ricardo Fraiman,et al.  An anova test for functional data , 2004, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[21]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Quantitative ultrasonic detection and classification of diffuse liver disease. Comparison with human observer performance. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[22]  William D O'Brien,et al.  Characterization of tissue microstructure using ultrasonic backscatter: theory and technique for optimization using a Gaussian form factor. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Tian Liu,et al.  Role of advanced 2 and 3-dimensional ultrasound for detecting prostate cancer. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[24]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[25]  K. Parker,et al.  Acoustic coupling from a focused transducer to a flat plate and back to the transducer. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Viksit Kumar,et al.  Ultrasonic Attenuation and Backscatter Coefficient Estimates of Rodent-Tumor-Mimicking Structures: Comparison of Results among Clinical Scanners , 2011, Ultrasonic imaging.