Image quality comparison between a phase-contrast synchrotron radiation breast CT and a clinical breast CT: a phantom based study

In this study we compared the image quality of a synchrotron radiation (SR) breast computed tomography (BCT) system with a clinical BCT in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), noise power spectrum (NPS), spatial resolution and detail visibility. A breast phantom consi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2019-11, Vol.9 (1), p.17778-12, Article 17778
Hauptverfasser: Brombal, Luca, Arfelli, Fulvia, Delogu, Pasquale, Donato, Sandro, Mettivier, Giovanni, Michielsen, Koen, Oliva, Piernicola, Taibi, Angelo, Sechopoulos, Ioannis, Longo, Renata, Fedon, Christian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 12
container_issue 1
container_start_page 17778
container_title Scientific reports
container_volume 9
creator Brombal, Luca
Arfelli, Fulvia
Delogu, Pasquale
Donato, Sandro
Mettivier, Giovanni
Michielsen, Koen
Oliva, Piernicola
Taibi, Angelo
Sechopoulos, Ioannis
Longo, Renata
Fedon, Christian
description In this study we compared the image quality of a synchrotron radiation (SR) breast computed tomography (BCT) system with a clinical BCT in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), noise power spectrum (NPS), spatial resolution and detail visibility. A breast phantom consisting of several slabs of breast-adipose equivalent material with different embedded targets (i.e., masses, fibers and calcifications) was used. Phantom images were acquired using a dedicated BCT system installed at the Radboud University Medical Center (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and the SR BCT system at the SYRMEP beamline of Elettra SR facility (Trieste, Italy) based on a photon-counting detector. Images with the SR setup were acquired mimicking the clinical BCT conditions (i.e., energy of 30 keV and radiation dose of 6.5 mGy). Images were reconstructed with an isotropic cubic voxel of 273 µm for the clinical BCT, while for the SR setup two phase-retrieval (PhR) kernels (referred to as “smooth” and “sharp”) were alternatively applied to each projection before tomographic reconstruction, with voxel size of 57 × 57 × 50 µm 3 . The CNR for the clinical BCT system can be up to 2-times higher than SR system, while the SNR can be 3-times lower than SR system, when the smooth PhR is used. The peak frequency of the NPS for the SR BCT is 2 to 4-times higher (0.9 mm −1 and 1.4 mm −1 with smooth and sharp PhR, respectively) than the clinical BCT (0.4 mm −1 ). The spatial resolution (MTF 10% ) was estimated to be 1.3 lp/mm for the clinical BCT, and 5.0 lp/mm and 6.7 lp/mm for the SR BCT with the smooth and sharp PhR, respectively. The smallest fiber visible in the SR BCT has a diameter of 0.15 mm, while for the clinical BCT is 0.41 mm. Calcification clusters with diameter of 0.13 mm are visible in the SR BCT, while the smallest diameter for the clinical BCT is 0.29 mm. As expected, the image quality of the SR BCT outperforms the clinical BCT system, providing images with higher spatial resolution and SNR, and with finer granularity. Nevertheless, this study assesses the image quality gap quantitatively, giving indications on the benefits associated with SR BCT and providing a benchmarking basis for its clinical implementation. In addition, SR-based studies can provide a gold-standard in terms of achievable image quality, constituting an upper-limit to the potential clinical development of a given technique.
doi_str_mv 10.1038/s41598-019-54131-z
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6882794</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2320379155</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-94de314e461f7f1d5e643c89fb3ee75ff2d36f9c54e372738435f9d27540e3493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9PFDEYxidGIgT4Ah7MJF68jPbvdurBxGwESUi84Lnptm93S2bape1IlpvfnC6DgB7spU2e3_u0T5-meYvRR4xo_ykzzGXfISw7zjDF3d2r5oggxjtCCXn94nzYnOZ8jeriRDIs3zSHFIseCSSOmt8Xo15DezPpwZdda-K41cnnGNoVlFuA0Op2u9EZOhNDSTqXNu-C2aRYUoWStl4Xv8cT7MXlVauDrUNm8MEbPTwLn2erUOLYrqqjbXOZ7O6kOXB6yHD6uB83P8--XS2_d5c_zi-WXy87wwQrnWQWKGbAFtgJhy2HBaOml25FAQR3jli6cNJwBlQQQXtGuZOWCM4QUCbpcfNl9t1OqxGsgX2cQW2TH3Xaqai9-lsJfqPW8Zda9D0RklWDD48GKd5MkIsafTYwDDpAnLKqf42okJjzir7_B72OUwo1XqWwZH2tTFSKzJRJMecE7ukxGKl9yWouWdWS1UPJ6q4OvXsZ42nkT6UVoDOQqxTWkJ7v_o_tPZtctIk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2319485417</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Image quality comparison between a phase-contrast synchrotron radiation breast CT and a clinical breast CT: a phantom based study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Nature Free</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Brombal, Luca ; Arfelli, Fulvia ; Delogu, Pasquale ; Donato, Sandro ; Mettivier, Giovanni ; Michielsen, Koen ; Oliva, Piernicola ; Taibi, Angelo ; Sechopoulos, Ioannis ; Longo, Renata ; Fedon, Christian</creator><creatorcontrib>Brombal, Luca ; Arfelli, Fulvia ; Delogu, Pasquale ; Donato, Sandro ; Mettivier, Giovanni ; Michielsen, Koen ; Oliva, Piernicola ; Taibi, Angelo ; Sechopoulos, Ioannis ; Longo, Renata ; Fedon, Christian</creatorcontrib><description>In this study we compared the image quality of a synchrotron radiation (SR) breast computed tomography (BCT) system with a clinical BCT in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), noise power spectrum (NPS), spatial resolution and detail visibility. A breast phantom consisting of several slabs of breast-adipose equivalent material with different embedded targets (i.e., masses, fibers and calcifications) was used. Phantom images were acquired using a dedicated BCT system installed at the Radboud University Medical Center (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and the SR BCT system at the SYRMEP beamline of Elettra SR facility (Trieste, Italy) based on a photon-counting detector. Images with the SR setup were acquired mimicking the clinical BCT conditions (i.e., energy of 30 keV and radiation dose of 6.5 mGy). Images were reconstructed with an isotropic cubic voxel of 273 µm for the clinical BCT, while for the SR setup two phase-retrieval (PhR) kernels (referred to as “smooth” and “sharp”) were alternatively applied to each projection before tomographic reconstruction, with voxel size of 57 × 57 × 50 µm 3 . The CNR for the clinical BCT system can be up to 2-times higher than SR system, while the SNR can be 3-times lower than SR system, when the smooth PhR is used. The peak frequency of the NPS for the SR BCT is 2 to 4-times higher (0.9 mm −1 and 1.4 mm −1 with smooth and sharp PhR, respectively) than the clinical BCT (0.4 mm −1 ). The spatial resolution (MTF 10% ) was estimated to be 1.3 lp/mm for the clinical BCT, and 5.0 lp/mm and 6.7 lp/mm for the SR BCT with the smooth and sharp PhR, respectively. The smallest fiber visible in the SR BCT has a diameter of 0.15 mm, while for the clinical BCT is 0.41 mm. Calcification clusters with diameter of 0.13 mm are visible in the SR BCT, while the smallest diameter for the clinical BCT is 0.29 mm. As expected, the image quality of the SR BCT outperforms the clinical BCT system, providing images with higher spatial resolution and SNR, and with finer granularity. Nevertheless, this study assesses the image quality gap quantitatively, giving indications on the benefits associated with SR BCT and providing a benchmarking basis for its clinical implementation. In addition, SR-based studies can provide a gold-standard in terms of achievable image quality, constituting an upper-limit to the potential clinical development of a given technique.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-54131-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31780707</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>631/57 ; 639/766/747 ; Algorithms ; Breast ; Breast - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Calcification ; Computed tomography ; Female ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Humans ; Mammography - instrumentation ; Mimicry ; multidisciplinary ; Noise ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Quality ; Science ; Science (multidisciplinary) ; Signal-To-Noise Ratio ; Slabs ; Spatial discrimination ; Synchrotrons - instrumentation ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</subject><ispartof>Scientific reports, 2019-11, Vol.9 (1), p.17778-12, Article 17778</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019</rights><rights>2019. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-94de314e461f7f1d5e643c89fb3ee75ff2d36f9c54e372738435f9d27540e3493</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-94de314e461f7f1d5e643c89fb3ee75ff2d36f9c54e372738435f9d27540e3493</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4009-8191 ; 0000-0002-5998-453X ; 0000-0002-9446-3967 ; 0000-0003-2026-2000 ; 0000-0001-6606-4304</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882794/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882794/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,41096,42165,51551,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31780707$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brombal, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arfelli, Fulvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delogu, Pasquale</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donato, Sandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mettivier, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michielsen, Koen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oliva, Piernicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taibi, Angelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sechopoulos, Ioannis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Longo, Renata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fedon, Christian</creatorcontrib><title>Image quality comparison between a phase-contrast synchrotron radiation breast CT and a clinical breast CT: a phantom based study</title><title>Scientific reports</title><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><description>In this study we compared the image quality of a synchrotron radiation (SR) breast computed tomography (BCT) system with a clinical BCT in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), noise power spectrum (NPS), spatial resolution and detail visibility. A breast phantom consisting of several slabs of breast-adipose equivalent material with different embedded targets (i.e., masses, fibers and calcifications) was used. Phantom images were acquired using a dedicated BCT system installed at the Radboud University Medical Center (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and the SR BCT system at the SYRMEP beamline of Elettra SR facility (Trieste, Italy) based on a photon-counting detector. Images with the SR setup were acquired mimicking the clinical BCT conditions (i.e., energy of 30 keV and radiation dose of 6.5 mGy). Images were reconstructed with an isotropic cubic voxel of 273 µm for the clinical BCT, while for the SR setup two phase-retrieval (PhR) kernels (referred to as “smooth” and “sharp”) were alternatively applied to each projection before tomographic reconstruction, with voxel size of 57 × 57 × 50 µm 3 . The CNR for the clinical BCT system can be up to 2-times higher than SR system, while the SNR can be 3-times lower than SR system, when the smooth PhR is used. The peak frequency of the NPS for the SR BCT is 2 to 4-times higher (0.9 mm −1 and 1.4 mm −1 with smooth and sharp PhR, respectively) than the clinical BCT (0.4 mm −1 ). The spatial resolution (MTF 10% ) was estimated to be 1.3 lp/mm for the clinical BCT, and 5.0 lp/mm and 6.7 lp/mm for the SR BCT with the smooth and sharp PhR, respectively. The smallest fiber visible in the SR BCT has a diameter of 0.15 mm, while for the clinical BCT is 0.41 mm. Calcification clusters with diameter of 0.13 mm are visible in the SR BCT, while the smallest diameter for the clinical BCT is 0.29 mm. As expected, the image quality of the SR BCT outperforms the clinical BCT system, providing images with higher spatial resolution and SNR, and with finer granularity. Nevertheless, this study assesses the image quality gap quantitatively, giving indications on the benefits associated with SR BCT and providing a benchmarking basis for its clinical implementation. In addition, SR-based studies can provide a gold-standard in terms of achievable image quality, constituting an upper-limit to the potential clinical development of a given technique.</description><subject>631/57</subject><subject>639/766/747</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Breast - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Calcification</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Mimicry</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science (multidisciplinary)</subject><subject>Signal-To-Noise Ratio</subject><subject>Slabs</subject><subject>Spatial discrimination</subject><subject>Synchrotrons - instrumentation</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</subject><issn>2045-2322</issn><issn>2045-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9PFDEYxidGIgT4Ah7MJF68jPbvdurBxGwESUi84Lnptm93S2bape1IlpvfnC6DgB7spU2e3_u0T5-meYvRR4xo_ykzzGXfISw7zjDF3d2r5oggxjtCCXn94nzYnOZ8jeriRDIs3zSHFIseCSSOmt8Xo15DezPpwZdda-K41cnnGNoVlFuA0Op2u9EZOhNDSTqXNu-C2aRYUoWStl4Xv8cT7MXlVauDrUNm8MEbPTwLn2erUOLYrqqjbXOZ7O6kOXB6yHD6uB83P8--XS2_d5c_zi-WXy87wwQrnWQWKGbAFtgJhy2HBaOml25FAQR3jli6cNJwBlQQQXtGuZOWCM4QUCbpcfNl9t1OqxGsgX2cQW2TH3Xaqai9-lsJfqPW8Zda9D0RklWDD48GKd5MkIsafTYwDDpAnLKqf42okJjzir7_B72OUwo1XqWwZH2tTFSKzJRJMecE7ukxGKl9yWouWdWS1UPJ6q4OvXsZ42nkT6UVoDOQqxTWkJ7v_o_tPZtctIk</recordid><startdate>20191128</startdate><enddate>20191128</enddate><creator>Brombal, Luca</creator><creator>Arfelli, Fulvia</creator><creator>Delogu, Pasquale</creator><creator>Donato, Sandro</creator><creator>Mettivier, Giovanni</creator><creator>Michielsen, Koen</creator><creator>Oliva, Piernicola</creator><creator>Taibi, Angelo</creator><creator>Sechopoulos, Ioannis</creator><creator>Longo, Renata</creator><creator>Fedon, Christian</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4009-8191</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5998-453X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9446-3967</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2026-2000</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6606-4304</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191128</creationdate><title>Image quality comparison between a phase-contrast synchrotron radiation breast CT and a clinical breast CT: a phantom based study</title><author>Brombal, Luca ; Arfelli, Fulvia ; Delogu, Pasquale ; Donato, Sandro ; Mettivier, Giovanni ; Michielsen, Koen ; Oliva, Piernicola ; Taibi, Angelo ; Sechopoulos, Ioannis ; Longo, Renata ; Fedon, Christian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-94de314e461f7f1d5e643c89fb3ee75ff2d36f9c54e372738435f9d27540e3493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>631/57</topic><topic>639/766/747</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Breast - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Calcification</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Mimicry</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science (multidisciplinary)</topic><topic>Signal-To-Noise Ratio</topic><topic>Slabs</topic><topic>Spatial discrimination</topic><topic>Synchrotrons - instrumentation</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brombal, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arfelli, Fulvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delogu, Pasquale</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donato, Sandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mettivier, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michielsen, Koen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oliva, Piernicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taibi, Angelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sechopoulos, Ioannis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Longo, Renata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fedon, Christian</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brombal, Luca</au><au>Arfelli, Fulvia</au><au>Delogu, Pasquale</au><au>Donato, Sandro</au><au>Mettivier, Giovanni</au><au>Michielsen, Koen</au><au>Oliva, Piernicola</au><au>Taibi, Angelo</au><au>Sechopoulos, Ioannis</au><au>Longo, Renata</au><au>Fedon, Christian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Image quality comparison between a phase-contrast synchrotron radiation breast CT and a clinical breast CT: a phantom based study</atitle><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle><stitle>Sci Rep</stitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><date>2019-11-28</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>17778</spage><epage>12</epage><pages>17778-12</pages><artnum>17778</artnum><issn>2045-2322</issn><eissn>2045-2322</eissn><abstract>In this study we compared the image quality of a synchrotron radiation (SR) breast computed tomography (BCT) system with a clinical BCT in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), noise power spectrum (NPS), spatial resolution and detail visibility. A breast phantom consisting of several slabs of breast-adipose equivalent material with different embedded targets (i.e., masses, fibers and calcifications) was used. Phantom images were acquired using a dedicated BCT system installed at the Radboud University Medical Center (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and the SR BCT system at the SYRMEP beamline of Elettra SR facility (Trieste, Italy) based on a photon-counting detector. Images with the SR setup were acquired mimicking the clinical BCT conditions (i.e., energy of 30 keV and radiation dose of 6.5 mGy). Images were reconstructed with an isotropic cubic voxel of 273 µm for the clinical BCT, while for the SR setup two phase-retrieval (PhR) kernels (referred to as “smooth” and “sharp”) were alternatively applied to each projection before tomographic reconstruction, with voxel size of 57 × 57 × 50 µm 3 . The CNR for the clinical BCT system can be up to 2-times higher than SR system, while the SNR can be 3-times lower than SR system, when the smooth PhR is used. The peak frequency of the NPS for the SR BCT is 2 to 4-times higher (0.9 mm −1 and 1.4 mm −1 with smooth and sharp PhR, respectively) than the clinical BCT (0.4 mm −1 ). The spatial resolution (MTF 10% ) was estimated to be 1.3 lp/mm for the clinical BCT, and 5.0 lp/mm and 6.7 lp/mm for the SR BCT with the smooth and sharp PhR, respectively. The smallest fiber visible in the SR BCT has a diameter of 0.15 mm, while for the clinical BCT is 0.41 mm. Calcification clusters with diameter of 0.13 mm are visible in the SR BCT, while the smallest diameter for the clinical BCT is 0.29 mm. As expected, the image quality of the SR BCT outperforms the clinical BCT system, providing images with higher spatial resolution and SNR, and with finer granularity. Nevertheless, this study assesses the image quality gap quantitatively, giving indications on the benefits associated with SR BCT and providing a benchmarking basis for its clinical implementation. In addition, SR-based studies can provide a gold-standard in terms of achievable image quality, constituting an upper-limit to the potential clinical development of a given technique.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>31780707</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41598-019-54131-z</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4009-8191</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5998-453X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9446-3967</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2026-2000</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6606-4304</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2045-2322
ispartof Scientific reports, 2019-11, Vol.9 (1), p.17778-12, Article 17778
issn 2045-2322
2045-2322
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6882794
source MEDLINE; Nature Free; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects 631/57
639/766/747
Algorithms
Breast
Breast - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Calcification
Computed tomography
Female
Humanities and Social Sciences
Humans
Mammography - instrumentation
Mimicry
multidisciplinary
Noise
Phantoms, Imaging
Quality
Science
Science (multidisciplinary)
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Slabs
Spatial discrimination
Synchrotrons - instrumentation
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation
title Image quality comparison between a phase-contrast synchrotron radiation breast CT and a clinical breast CT: a phantom based study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T13%3A30%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Image%20quality%20comparison%20between%20a%20phase-contrast%20synchrotron%20radiation%20breast%20CT%20and%20a%20clinical%20breast%20CT:%20a%20phantom%20based%20study&rft.jtitle=Scientific%20reports&rft.au=Brombal,%20Luca&rft.date=2019-11-28&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=17778&rft.epage=12&rft.pages=17778-12&rft.artnum=17778&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41598-019-54131-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2320379155%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2319485417&rft_id=info:pmid/31780707&rfr_iscdi=true