Digital Tomosynthesis: Technique

Radiologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 489-497

  Yaffe, Martin J ^a   Mainprize, James G ^a  

^a Canada   (Canada)

Author keywords

Digital mammography; Digital tomosynthesis; Optimization; Reconstruction

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTIFACT; BREAST EXAMINATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION SCATTERING; REVIEW; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOMOGRAPHY; X RAY;

DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL TOMOSYNTHESIS; OPTIMIZATION; RECONSTRUCTION;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFACTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SCATTERING, RADIATION;

EID: 84899698092     PISSN: 00338389     EISSN: 15578275     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2014.01.003     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Dobbins J.T. Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads. Med Phys 2009, 36(6):1956.
2. Kuo J., Ringer P.A., Fallows S.G., et al. Dynamic reconstruction and rendering of 3D tomosynthesis images. Physics (College Park Md) 2011, 7961. 796116-1-11.
3. Stevens G.M., Birdwell R.L., Beaulieu C.F., et al. Circular tomosynthesis: potential in imaging of breast and upper cervical spine-preliminary phantom and invitro study. Radiology 2003, 228(2):569-575.
4. Dobbins J.T., Godfrey D.J. Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 2003, 48(19):R65-R106.
5. Sechopoulos I. Areview of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys 2013, 40(1):014301.
6. Dahlman N., Fredenberg E., Åslund M., et al. Evaluation of photon-counting spectral breast tomosynthesis. Proc SPIE 2011, 7961. 796114-1-10.
7. 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(11):4859.
8. Kempston M.P., Mainprize J.G., Yaffe M.J. Evaluating the effect of dose on reconstructed image quality in digital tomosynthesis. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2006, 4046:490-497.
9. Sechopoulos I., Ghetti C. Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 2009, 36(4):1199-1207.
10. Reiser I., Nishikawa R.M. Task-based assessment of breast tomosynthesis: effect of acquisition parameters and quantum noise. Med Phys 2010, 37(4):1591-1600.
11. Young S., Bakic P.R., Myers K.J., et al. A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data. Med Phys 2013, 40(5):1-15.
12. Barrett H.H. Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability. JOpt Soc Am A 1990, 7(7):1266-1278.
13. Wu G., Mainprize J.G., Boone J.M., et al. Evaluation of scatter effects on image quality for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2009, 36(10):4425.
14. Varjonen M., Strömmer P., Oy P. Optimizing the target-filter combination in digital mammography in the sense of image quality and average glandular dose. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2008, 5116:570-576.
15. Dance D.R., Young K.C., van Engen R.E. Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 2009, 54(14):4361-4372.
16. Chen Y., Lo J.Y., Dobbins J.T. 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(10):3885.
17. Feldkamp L., Davis L., Kress J. Practical cone-beam algorithm. JOpt Soc Am A 1984, 1(6):612-619.
18. Siddon R.L. Fast calculation of the exact radiological path for a three-dimensional CT array. Med Phys 1985, 12:252.
19. Kak A.C., Slaney M. Algorithms for reconstruction with nondiffracting sources. Principles of computerized tomographic imaging, Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics 2001, Available at:. http://www.slaney.org/pct.
20. Mertelmeier T. Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device. Proc SPIE 2006, 6142. 61420F-1-12.
21. Kak A.C., Slaney M. Algebraic reconstruction algorithms. Principles of computerized tomographic imaging, Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics 2001, 275-296. Available at:. http://www.slaney.org/pct.
22. Wang B., Barner K., Lee D. Algebraic tomosynthesis reconstruction. Proc SPIE 2004, 5370:711-718.
23. Zhang Y. Tomosynthesis reconstruction using the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) on breast phantom data. Proc SPIE 2006, 6142. 614249-1-9.
24. Hill M.L., Liu K., Mainprize J.G., et al. Pre-clinical evaluation of tumour angiogenesis with contrast-enhanced breast tomosynthesis. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2012, 7361:1-8.
25. Zhang Y., Chan H.P., Sahiner B., et al. Acomparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2006, 33(10):3781-3795.
26. Wu T., Zhang J., Moore R., et al. Digital tomosynthesis mammography using a parallel maximum-likelihood reconstruction method. Proc SPIE 2004, 5368:1-11.
27. Sidky E.Y., Reiser I.S., Nishikawa R., et al. Image reconstruction in digital breast tomosynthesis by totalvariation minimization. Proc SPIE 2007, 6510. 651027-1-6.
28. Das M., Gifford H.C., O'Connor J.M., et al. Penalized maximum likelihood reconstruction for improved microcalcification detection in breast tomosynthesis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2011, 30(4):904-914.
29. Boone J.M., Nelson T.R., Lindfors K.K., et al. Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology 2001, 221(3):657-667.
30. Madhav P., Crotty D.J., McKinley R.L., et al. Evaluation of tilted cone-beam CT orbits in the development of a dedicated hybrid mammotomograph. Phys Med Biol 2009, 54(12):3659-3676.
31. O'Connell A., Conover D.L., Zhang Y., et al. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. Am J Roentgenol 2010, 195(2):496-509.
32. Rafferty E, Kopans D, Wu T, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: will a single view do? RSNA 90th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting. Chicago, November 28 - December 3, 2004.
33. Wallis M.G., Moa E., Zanca F., et al. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 2012, 262(3):788-796.
34. Gennaro G., Hendrick R.E., Toledano A., et al. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol 2013, 23(8):2087-2094.
35. Bijhold J. Three-dimensional verification of patient placement during radiotherapy using portal images. Med Phys 1993, 20(2):347-356.
36. Gur D., Zuley M.L., Anello M.I., et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 2011, 19(2):166-171.
37. Nishikawa R.M., Reiser I., Seifi P., et al. Anew approach todigital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening. Proc SPIE 2007, 6510. 65103C-1-8.
38. Hu Y.H., Zhao W. The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2011, 38(5):2455-2466.
39. Das M., Gifford H.C., O'Connor J.M., et al. Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2009, 36(6):1976-1984.
40. Young S., Badal A., Myers K.J., et al. A task-specific argument for variable-exposure breast tomosynthesis. LNCS 2012, 7361:72-79.