Advanced

A human observer study for evaluation and optimization of reconstruction methods in breast tomosynthesis using clinical cases

Förnvik, Daniel LU ; Jerebko, Anna; Timberg, Pontus LU ; Schasiepen, Ingo; Hofmann, Carina; Zackrisson, Sophia LU ; Andersson, Ingvar LU ; Mertelmeier, Thomas and Tingberg, Anders LU (2011) Conference on Medical Imaging - Physics of Medical Imaging, 2011 In Medical Imaging 2011: Physics of Medical Imaging 7961. p.79615-79615
Abstract
In breast tomosynthesis1 (BT) a number of 2D projection images are acquired from different angles along a limited arc. The imaged breast volume is reconstructed from the projection images, providing 3D information. The purpose of the study was to investigate and optimize different reconstruction methods for BT in terms of image quality using human observers viewing clinical cases. Sixty-six cases with suspected masses and calcifications were collected from 55 patients. Four different reconstructions of each image set were evaluated by four observers (two experienced radiologists, two experienced medical physicists): filtered back projection (FBP), iterative adapted FBP (iFBP) and two ML-convex iterative algorithm (MLCI) reconstructions (8... (More)
In breast tomosynthesis1 (BT) a number of 2D projection images are acquired from different angles along a limited arc. The imaged breast volume is reconstructed from the projection images, providing 3D information. The purpose of the study was to investigate and optimize different reconstruction methods for BT in terms of image quality using human observers viewing clinical cases. Sixty-six cases with suspected masses and calcifications were collected from 55 patients. Four different reconstructions of each image set were evaluated by four observers (two experienced radiologists, two experienced medical physicists): filtered back projection (FBP), iterative adapted FBP (iFBP) and two ML-convex iterative algorithm (MLCI) reconstructions (8 and 10 iterations) that differed in noise level and contrast of clinical details. Representation of masses and microcalcifications was evaluated. The structures were rated according to the overall appearance in a rank-order study. The differently reconstructed images of the same structure were displayed side by side in random order. The observers were forced to rank the order of the different reconstructed images and their proportions at each rank were scored. The results suggest that even though the FBP contains most noise its reconstructions are considered best overall, followed by iFBP, which contains least noise. In both FBP and iFBP methods the sharp borders and mass speculations were better represented than in iterative reconstructions while out-of-plane artifacts were better suppressed in the latter. However, in clinical practice the differences between the reconstructions may be considered negligible. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
keywords
breast tomosynthesis, iterative reconstruction, filtered back, projection, human observer study
in
Medical Imaging 2011: Physics of Medical Imaging
volume
7961
pages
79615 - 79615
publisher
SPIE
conference name
Conference on Medical Imaging - Physics of Medical Imaging, 2011
external identifiers
  • wos:000294178500184
  • scopus:79955764166
ISSN
1996-756X
0277-786X
DOI
10.1117/12.878116
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
63af5ef7-7293-4db7-9871-d34d860021bd (old id 2187290)
date added to LUP
2011-10-24 10:02:20
date last changed
2017-11-20 15:05:56
@inproceedings{63af5ef7-7293-4db7-9871-d34d860021bd,
  abstract     = {In breast tomosynthesis1 (BT) a number of 2D projection images are acquired from different angles along a limited arc. The imaged breast volume is reconstructed from the projection images, providing 3D information. The purpose of the study was to investigate and optimize different reconstruction methods for BT in terms of image quality using human observers viewing clinical cases. Sixty-six cases with suspected masses and calcifications were collected from 55 patients. Four different reconstructions of each image set were evaluated by four observers (two experienced radiologists, two experienced medical physicists): filtered back projection (FBP), iterative adapted FBP (iFBP) and two ML-convex iterative algorithm (MLCI) reconstructions (8 and 10 iterations) that differed in noise level and contrast of clinical details. Representation of masses and microcalcifications was evaluated. The structures were rated according to the overall appearance in a rank-order study. The differently reconstructed images of the same structure were displayed side by side in random order. The observers were forced to rank the order of the different reconstructed images and their proportions at each rank were scored. The results suggest that even though the FBP contains most noise its reconstructions are considered best overall, followed by iFBP, which contains least noise. In both FBP and iFBP methods the sharp borders and mass speculations were better represented than in iterative reconstructions while out-of-plane artifacts were better suppressed in the latter. However, in clinical practice the differences between the reconstructions may be considered negligible.},
  author       = {Förnvik, Daniel and Jerebko, Anna and Timberg, Pontus and Schasiepen, Ingo and Hofmann, Carina and Zackrisson, Sophia and Andersson, Ingvar and Mertelmeier, Thomas and Tingberg, Anders},
  booktitle    = {Medical Imaging 2011: Physics of Medical Imaging},
  issn         = {1996-756X},
  keyword      = {breast tomosynthesis,iterative reconstruction,filtered back,projection,human observer study},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {79615--79615},
  publisher    = {SPIE},
  title        = {A human observer study for evaluation and optimization of reconstruction methods in breast tomosynthesis using clinical cases},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.878116},
  volume       = {7961},
  year         = {2011},
}