Noise measurements from reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis

In this work, we investigated and measured the noise in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) slices considering the back-projection (BP) algorithm for image reconstruction. First, we presented our open-source DBT reconstruction toolbox and validated with a freely available virtual clinical trials (VCT) software, comparing our results with the reconstruction toolbox available at the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) repository. A virtual anthropomorphic breast phantom was generated in the VCT environment and noise-free DBT projections were simulated. Slices were reconstructed by both toolboxes and objective metrics were measured to evaluate the performance of our in-house reconstruction software. For the noise analysis, commercial DBT systems from two vendors were used to obtain x-ray projections of a uniform polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) physical phantom. One system featured an indirect thallium activated cesium iodide (CsI(TI)) scintillator detector and the other a direct amorphous selenium (a-Se) detector. Our in-house software was used to reconstruct raw projections into tomographic slices, and the mean pixel value, noise variance, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) were measured. In addition, we investigated the adequacy of a heteroskedastic Gaussian model, with an affine variance function, to describe the noise in the reconstruction domain. The measurements show that the variance and SNR from reconstructed slices report similar spatial and signal dependency from previously reported in the projection domain. NNPS showed that the reconstruction process correlates the noise of the DBT slices in the case of projections degraded with almost uncorrelated noise.

[1]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Method for Simulating Dose Reduction in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[3]  Alessandro Foi,et al.  Modeling and Estimation of Signal-Dependent and Correlated Noise , 2018 .

[4]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Detector Blur and Correlated Noise Modeling for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Reconstruction , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[5]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Restoration of low-dose digital breast tomosynthesis , 2018 .

[6]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art. , 2015, Radiology.

[7]  Y. B. Wah,et al.  Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk , Kolmogorov-Smirnov , Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests , 2011 .

[8]  Walter Huda,et al.  Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. , 2003, Medical physics.

[9]  Lucas R. Borges,et al.  Open-Source Reconstruction Toolbox for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2019, XXVI Brazilian Congress on Biomedical Engineering.

[10]  J. A. Fessler,et al.  2.11 – Fundamentals of CT Reconstruction in 2D and 3D , 2014 .

[11]  Gang Wu,et al.  Dose Reduction for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis by Patch-Based Denoising in Reconstruction , 2012, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[12]  Turan Olgar,et al.  Investigation of noise sources for digital radiography systems , 2017, Radiological Physics and Technology.

[13]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Application of neural networks to model the signal-dependent noise of a digital breast tomosynthesis unit , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[14]  Dragana Brzakovic,et al.  Mammogram synthesis using a three-dimensional simulation. III. Modeling and evaluation of the breast ductal network. , 2003, Medical physics.

[15]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Metal artifact reduction using a patch-based reconstruction for digital breast tomosynthesis , 2017, Medical Imaging.

[16]  Arthur Burgess.  On the noise variance of a digital mammography system. , 2004, Medical physics.

[17]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. II. Evaluation of synthetic mammogram texture. , 2002, Medical physics.

[18]  Yulia Levakhina,et al.  Three-Dimensional Digital Tomosynthesis , 2014 .

[19]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Pipeline for effective denoising of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis , 2017, Medical Imaging.

[20]  James T. Dobbins.  Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems , 2000 .

[21]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. , 2007, Medical physics.

[22]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[23]  M. Michell,et al.  Role of tomosynthesis in breast imaging going forward. , 2018, Clinical radiology.

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

[25]  Yulia M. Levakhina.  Three-dimensional digital tomosynthesis: iterative reconstruction, artifact reduction and alternative acquisition geometry , 2014 .

[26]  F R Verdun,et al.  Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems. , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  B. De Man,et al.  Distance-driven projection and backprojection in three dimensions. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.