Variations in optical coherence tomography resolution and uniformity: a multi-system performance comparison.

Point spread function (PSF) phantoms based on unstructured distributions of sub-resolution particles in a transparent matrix have been demonstrated as a useful tool for evaluating resolution and its spatial variation across image volumes in optical coherence tomography (OCT) systems. Measurements based on PSF phantoms have the potential to become a standard test method for consistent, objective and quantitative inter-comparison of OCT system performance. Towards this end, we have evaluated three PSF phantoms and investigated their ability to compare the performance of four OCT systems. The phantoms are based on 260-nm-diameter gold nanoshells, 400-nm-diameter iron oxide particles and 1.5-micron-diameter silica particles. The OCT systems included spectral-domain and swept source systems in free-beam geometries as well as a time-domain system in both free-beam and fiberoptic probe geometries. Results indicated that iron oxide particles and gold nanoshells were most effective for measuring spatial variations in the magnitude and shape of PSFs across the image volume. The intensity of individual particles was also used to evaluate spatial variations in signal intensity uniformity. Significant system-to-system differences in resolution and signal intensity and their spatial variation were readily quantified. The phantoms proved useful for identification and characterization of irregularities such as astigmatism. Our multi-system results provide evidence of the practical utility of PSF-phantom-based test methods for quantitative inter-comparison of OCT system resolution and signal uniformity.

[1]  Salman S Rogers,et al.  Precise particle tracking against a complicated background: polynomial fitting with Gaussian weight , 2007, Physical biology.

[2]  Joshua Pfefer,et al.  A review of consensus test methods for established medical imaging modalities and their implications for optical coherence tomography , 2012, BiOS.

[3]  Brendan F Kennedy,et al.  Structured three-dimensional optical phantom for optical coherence tomography. , 2011, Optics express.

[4]  Kelsey M. Kennedy,et al.  Review of tissue simulating phantoms with controllable optical, mechanical and structural properties for use in optical coherence tomography , 2012, Biomedical optics express.

[5]  Anant Agrawal,et al.  Characterizing the point spread function of retinal OCT devices with a model eye-based phantom , 2011, CLEO 2011.

[6]  Freddy T. Nguyen,et al.  Optical coherence tomography: a review of clinical development from bench to bedside. , 2007, Journal of biomedical optics.

[7]  H. Bezerra,et al.  In vitro validation of new Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. , 2011, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[8]  Alex Cable,et al.  Automated quantification of microstructural dimensions of the human kidney using optical coherence tomography (OCT). , 2009, Optics express.

[9]  T. Joshua Pfefer,et al.  Multilayer thin-film phantoms for axial contrast transfer function measurement in optical coherence tomography , 2013, Biomedical optics express.

[10]  Anant Agrawal,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of optical coherence tomography signal enhancement with gold nanoshells. , 2006, Journal of biomedical optics.

[11]  Peter H. Tomlins,et al.  Point-spread function phantoms for optical coherence tomography. , 2009 .

[12]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. , 2002, Medical physics.

[13]  Daniel X Hammer,et al.  Foveal fine structure in retinopathy of prematurity: an adaptive optics Fourier domain optical coherence tomography study. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  S. Hell.  Increasing the Resolution of Far-Field Fluorescence Light Microscopy by Point-Spread-Function Engineering , 2002 .

[15]  Joshua Pfefer,et al.  Multi-system comparison of optical coherence tomography performance with point spread function phantoms , 2013, Photonics West - Biomedical Optics.

[16]  Stefan W. Hell,et al.  Measurement of the 4Pi‐confocal point spread function proves 75 nm axial resolution , 1994 .

[17]  Robert J. Zawadzki,et al.  New developments in eye models with retina tissue phantoms for ophthalmic optical coherence tomography , 2012, BiOS.

[18]  N. Nanninga,et al.  Three‐Dimensional Imaging by Confocal Scanning Fluorescence Microscopy a , 1986, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Rebekah Drezek,et al.  Three-dimensional characterization of optical coherence tomography point spread functions with a nanoparticle-embedded phantom. , 2010, Optics letters.

[20]  Jannick P Rolland,et al.  Spectral shaping to improve the point spread function in optical coherence tomography. , 2003, Optics letters.

[21]  I. Malitson.  Interspecimen Comparison of the Refractive Index of Fused Silica , 1965 .

[22]  Peter D Woolliams,et al.  Spatially deconvolved optical coherence tomography. , 2010, Applied optics.

[23]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: initial performance characterization. , 2000, Medical physics.

[24]  Ho-Ling Liu,et al.  Quality Assurance of Clinical MRI Scanners Using ACR MRI Phantom: Preliminary Results , 2004, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[25]  Teresa C. Chen,et al.  Ultrahigh-resolution high-speed retinal imaging using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. , 2004, Optics express.

[26]  Peter H. Tomlins,et al.  Estimating the resolution of a commercial optical coherence tomography system with limited spatial sampling , 2011 .

[27]  Peter H. Tomlins,et al.  Measurement of the three-dimensional point-spread function in an optical coherence tomography imaging system , 2008, SPIE BiOS.

[28]  A. Dunn,et al.  Influence of optical properties on two-photon fluorescence imaging in turbid samples. , 2000, Applied optics.