Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images.

Previous work [Burgess et al., Med. Phys. 28, 419-437 (2001)] has shown that anatomical noise in projection mammography results in a power spectrum well modeled over a range of frequencies by a power law, and the exponent (beta) of this power law plays a critical role in determining the size at which a growing lesion reaches the threshold for detection. In this study, the authors evaluated the power-law model for breast computed tomography (bCT) images, which can be thought of as thin sections through a three-dimensional (3D) volume. Under the assumption of a 3D power law describing the distribution of attenuation coefficients in the breast parenchyma, the authors derived the relationship between the power-law exponents of bCT and projection images and found it to be betasection=betaproj-1. They evaluated this relationship on clinical images by comparing bCT images from a set of 43 patients to Burgess' findings in mammography. They were able to make a direct comparison for 6 of these patients who had both a bCT exam and a digitized film-screen mammogram. They also evaluated segmented bCT images to investigate the extent to which the bCT power-law exponent can be explained by a binary model of attenuation coefficients based on the different attenuation of glandular and adipose tissue. The power-law model was found to be a good fit for bCT data over frequencies from 0.07 to 0.45 cyc/mm, where anatomical variability dominates the spectrum. The average exponent for bCT images was 1.86. This value is close to the theoretical prediction using Burgess' published data for projection mammography and for the limited set of mammography data available from the authors' patient sample. Exponents from the segmented bCT images (average value: 2.06) were systematically slightly higher than bCT images, with substantial correlation between the two (r=0.84).

[1]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. , 1995, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  T R Nelson,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of DgN(CT) coefficients for pendant-geometry cone-beam breast computed tomography. , 2004, Medical physics.

[3]  Arthur E Burgess,et al.  Signal detection in power-law noise: effect of spectrum exponents. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[4]  John M. Boone,et al.  Computed Tomography for Imaging the Breast , 2006, Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia.

[5]  A Fenster,et al.  Dual-energy mammography: initial experimental results. , 1985, Medical physics.

[6]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[7]  Arthur E. Burgess,et al.  Mammographic structure: data preparation and spatial statistics analysis , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[8]  J. Boone,et al.  Evaluation of the spatial resolution characteristics of a cone-beam breast CT scanner. , 2006, Medical physics.

[9]  B. F. Logan,et al.  The Fourier reconstruction of a head section , 1974 .

[10]  H. Kundel,et al.  Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error. , 1976, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  John J Heine,et al.  Spectral analysis of full field digital mammography data. , 2002, Medical physics.

[12]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

[13]  Mats Danielsson,et al.  Single-shot dual-energy subtraction mammography with electronic spectrum splitting: feasibility. , 2006, European journal of radiology.

[14]  John M Lewin,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. , 2003, Radiology.

[15]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[16]  J. Boone,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. , 2008, Radiology.

[17]  K. Rajgopal,et al.  Two-Dimensional Spectral Estimation: A Radon Transform Approach , 1987 .

[18]  Walter Huda,et al.  How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography? , 2006, Academic radiology.

[19]  Y H Chang,et al.  Adaptive computer-aided diagnosis scheme of digitized mammograms. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[20]  John M Boone,et al.  Classification of breast computed tomography data. , 2008, Medical physics.

[21]  B. Logan,et al.  Reconstructing Interior Head Tissue from X-Ray Transmissions , 1974 .

[22]  G T Barnes,et al.  An energy sensitive cassette for dual-energy mammography. , 1989, Medical physics.

[23]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Figures of merit for detectors in digital radiography. I. Flat background and deterministic blurring. , 2004, Medical physics.

[24]  H H Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[25]  J. Boone,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. , 2001, Radiology.

[26]  J. Heine,et al.  Mammographic tissue, breast cancer risk, serial image analysis, and digital mammography. Part 2. Serial breast tissue change and related temporal influences. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[27]  John M Boone,et al.  Breast CT: potential for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. , 2006, Future oncology.

[28]  Jennifer A Harvey,et al.  Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. , 2004, Radiology.