Artifact reduction methods for truncated projections in iterative breast tomosynthesis reconstruction

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 426-435

  Zhang, Yiheng ^a,b   Chan, Heang Ping ^a   Sahiner, Berkman ^a   Wei, Jun ^a   Zhou, Chuan ^a   Hadjiiski, Lubomir M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital breast tomosynthesis mammography; Simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique; Truncation artifact reduction

Indexed keywords

ALGEBRA; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; ITERATIVE METHODS; MAMMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY;

ANGULAR RANGE; ARTEFACT REDUCTION; BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS MAMMOGRAPHIES; PROJECTION VIEWS; REDUCTION METHOD; SIMULTANEOUS ALGEBRAIC RECONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE; TRUNCATED PROJECTIONS; TRUNCATION ARTIFACT REDUCTION;

IMAGE QUALITY;

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; BREAST; BREAST CANCER; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; DENSITY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS MAMMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; SIMULTANEOUS ALGEBRAIC RECONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; ALGORITHM; ARTIFACT; BREAST TUMOR; EVALUATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFACTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 67649132545     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181838000     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205:399-406.
2. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, et al. Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. Acad Radio. 2000;7:1085-1097.
3. Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, et al. Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys. 2003;30:365-380.
4. Ren B, Ruth C, Stein J, et al. Design and performance of the prototype full field breast tomosynthesis system with selenium based flat panel detector. Proc SPIE. 2005;5745:550-561.
5. Bissonnette M, Hansroul M, Masson E, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. Proc SPIE. 2005;5745:529-540.
6. Eberhard JW, Staudinger P, Smolenski J, et al. High speed, large angle mammography tomosynthesis system. Proc SPIE. 2006; 6142:61420C.
7. Kopans D. Digital tomosynthesis and other applications. In: RSNA Program Book 2005. 2005:130.
8. Poplack S, Kogel C, Nagy H. Initial experience with digital breast tomosynthesis in 99 breasts of 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. In: RSNA Program Book 2005. 2005:317.
9. Moore R, Stewart A, Wu T, et al. Second-generation digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the screening setting: workflow and preliminary results. In: RSNA Program Book 2005. 2005:318.
10. Lo J, Baker J, Orman J, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: initial clinical experience with 100 human subjects. In: RSNA Program Book 2006. 2006:335.
11. Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Zhang Y, et al. Tomosynthesis mammography vs conventional mammography: lesion detection and reader preference. Initial experience. In: RSNA Program Book 2006. 2006:335.
12. Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Hadjiiski LM, et al. Tomosynthesis mammography vs conventional mammography: comparison of breast masses detection and characterization. In: RSNA Program Book 2007. 2007:381.
13. Moore RH, Kopans DB, Rafferty EA, et al. Initial callback rates for conventional and digital breast tomosynthesis mammography comparison in the screening setting. In: RSNA Program Book 2006. 2006:381.
14. Dobbins JT, Godfrey DJ. Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:R65-R106.
15. Grant DG. Tomosynthesis: a three-dimensional x-ray imaging technique. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1972;19:20-28.
16. Kolitsi Z, Panayiotakis G, Anastassopoulus V, et al. A multiple projection method for digital tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 1992;19:1045-1050.
17. Chen Y, Lo JY, Dobbins JT. Importance of point-by-point back projection correction for isocentric motion in digital breast tomosynthesis: relevance to morphology of structures such as microcalcifications. Med Phys. 2007;34:3885-3892.
18. Lauritsch G, Haerer W. A theoretical framework for filtered back-projection in tomosynthesis. Proc SPIE. 1998;3338: 1127-1137.
19. Chen Y, Lo JY, Baker JA, et al. Gaussian frequency blending algorithm with matrix inversion tomosynthesis (MITS) and filtered back projection (FBP) for better digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction. Proc SPIE. 2006;6142:122-130.
20. T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, et al. A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2004;31: 2636-2647.
21. Chen Y, Lo JY, Dobbins JT. Impulse response analysis for several digital tomosynthesis mammography reconstruction algorithms. Proc SPIE. 2005;5745:541-549.
22. Zhang Y, Chan H-P, Sahiner B, et al. A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2006;33:3781-3795.
23. Zhou J, Zhao B, Zhao W. A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. Med Phys. 2007;34:1098-1109.
24. Goddard I, Wu T, Thieret S, et al. Implementing an iterative reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis on graphics processing hardware. Proc SPIE. 2006;6142:61424V.
25. Wu T, Zhang J, Moore R, et al. Digital tomosynthesis mammography using a parallel maximum-likelihood reconstruction method. Proc SPIE. 2004;5368:1-11.
26. Zhang Y, Chan H-P, Sahiner B, et al. Application of boundary detection information in breast tomosynthesis reconstruction. Med Phys. 2007;34:3603-3613.
27. Lewitt RM. Processing of incomplete measurement data in computed tomography. Med Phys. 1979;6:412-417.
28. Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Schwarz K, et al. Efficient correction for CT image artifacts caused by objects extending outside the scan field of view. Med Phys. 2000;27:39-46.
29. Sourbelle K, Kachelriess M, Kalender WA. Reconstruction from truncated projections in CT using adaptive detruncation. Eur Radio. 2005;15:1008-1014.
30. Hsieh J, Chao E, Thibault J, et al. A novel reconstruction algorithm to extend the CT scan field-of-view. Med Phys. 2004;31:2385-2391.
31. Loncaric S, Chang W, Huang G. A processing technique for the truncated projections of asymmetric-fan-beam transmission imaging. IEEE Transactions Nucl Sci. 1995;42:2292-2297.
32. Chang W, Loncaric S, Huang G, et al. Asymmetric fan transmission CT on SPECT systems. Phys Med Biol. 1995;40:913-928.
33. Kunze H, Härer W, Stierstorfer K. Iterative extended field of view reconstruction. Proc SPIE. 2007;8:65105X.
34. Li B, Avinasha G, Claus B, et al. 3-D view weighted cone-beam filtered backprojection reconstruction for digital tomosynthesis. Proc SPIE. 8;6510:65104X.
35. Andersen AH, Kak AC. Simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART): a new implementation of the ART algorithm. Ultrason Imaging. 1984;6:81-94.
36. Andersen AH. Algebraic reconstruction in CT from limited views. IEEE Trans Med Imag. 1989;8:50-55.
37. Gordon R, Bender R, Herman GT. Algebraic reconstruction techniques (ART) for three dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography. J Theor Biol. 1970;29:471-481.
38. Herman GT. Image Reconstruction from Projections: The Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1980.
39. Kak A, Slaney M. Principle of Computerized Tomographic Imaging. New York, NY: IEEE Press; 1988.
40. Zhang Y, Chan H-P, Sahiner B, et al. Breast tomosynthesis reconstruction with simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART): effect of access strategy of projection-view images. In: RSNA Program Book. 2006:130.