An Anthropomorphic Breast Model for Breast Imaging Simulation and Optimization

Academic Radiology

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 536-546

  Chen, Baiyu ^a,b   Shorey, Jamie ^c   Saunders, Robert S ^b   Richard, Samuel ^b   Thompson, John ^b   Nolte, Loren W ^c   Samei, Ehsan ^a,b,c  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Duke University   (United States)

Author keywords

Anthropomorphic breast phantom; Breast imaging; Monte Carlo simulation; System optimization; Virtual phantoms

Indexed keywords

ADIPOSE TISSUE; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST EXAMINATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSIMETRY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MORPHOLOGY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; SUBCUTANEOUS FAT; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; X RAY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MODELS, ANATOMIC; MONTE CARLO METHOD; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 79953304227     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.11.009     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Samei E., Eyler W., Baron L. Effects of anatomical structure on signal detection. Handbook of Medical Imaging 2000, SPIE Press, Bellingham, WA.
2. Tamimi R.M., Cox D., Kraft P., et al. Breast cancer susceptibility loci and mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res 2008, 10:R66.
3. Armstrong K., Eisen A., Weber B. Assessing the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:564-571.
4. Caldwell C.B., Yaffe M.J. Development of an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Med Phys 1990, 17:273-280.
5. Cinti M.N., Pani R., Garibaldi F., et al. Custom breast phantom for an accurate tumor SNR analysis. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2004, 51:198-204.
6. Hoeschen C., Fill U., Zankl M., et al. A high-resolution voxel phantom of the breast for dose calculations in mammography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005, 114:406-409.
7. Zastrow E., Davis S.K., Lazebnik M., et al. Development of anatomically realistic numerical breast phantoms with accurate dielectric properties for modeling microwave interactions with the human breast. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008, 55:2792-2800.
8. Bliznakova K., Bliznakov Z., Bravou V., et al. A three-dimensional breast software phantom for mammography simulation. Phys Med Biol 2003, 48:3699-3719.
9. Nappi J., Dean P.B., Nevalainen O., et al. Algorithmic 3D simulation of breast calcifications for digital mammography. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2001, 66:115-124.
10. Bakic P.R., Albert M., Brzakovic D., et al. Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. II. Evaluation of synthetic mammogram texture. Med Phys 2002, 29:2140-2151.
11. Bakic P.R., Albert M., Brzakovic D., et al. Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. I. Breast tissue model and image acquisition simulation. Med Phys 2002, 29:2131-2139.
12. Bakic P.R., Albert M., Brzakovic D., et al. Mammogram synthesis using a three-dimensional simulation. III. Modeling and evaluation of the breast ductal network. Med Phys 2003, 30:1914-1925.
13. Shorey JM. Stochastic simulations for the detection of objects in three dimensional volumes: applications in medical imaging and ocean acoustics. 2007.
14. Egan R.L. Breast embryology, anatomy and physiology. Breast imaging: diagnosis and morphology of breast diseases 1988, Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 30-58.
15. Burgess A.E., Jacobson F.L., Judy P.F. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 2001, 28:419-437.
16. Gong X., Glick S.J., Liu B., et al. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. Med Phys 2006, 33:1041-1052.
17. Bargeron C.B., Hutchins G.M., Moore G.W., et al. Distribution of the geometric parameters of human aortic bifurcations. Arteriosclerosis 1986, 6:109-113.
18. Zamir M., Chee H. Branching characteristics of human coronary arteries. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1986, 64:661-668.
19. Raabe O.G., Yeh H.C., Schum G.M., et al. Tracheobronchial geometry: human, dog, rat, hamster 1976, Lovelace Foundation Report LF-53 Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, NM.
20. Burgess A.E., Chakraborty S. Producing lesions for hybrid mammograms: Extracted tumours and simulated microcalcifications. Proc SPIE Int Soc Optical Eng 1999, 3663:316-322.
21. Saunders R.S., Samei E., Lo J.Y., et al. Can compression be reduced for breast tomosynthesis? Monte Carlo study on mass and microcalcification conspicuity in tomosynthesis. Radiology 2009, 251:673-682.
22. Chawla A.S., Lo J.Y., Baker J.A., et al. Optimized image acquisition for breast tomosynthesis in projection and reconstruction space. Med Phys 2009, 36:4859-4869.
23. Erdogan H., Fessler J.A. Ordered subsets algorithms for transmission tomography. Phys Med Biol 1999, 44:2835-2851.
24. Samei E., Flynn M.J. An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. Med Phys 2003, 30:608-622.
25. Saunders R.S., Samei E. The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys 2008, 35:4464-4473.