nach oben

Erschienen in:

23.01.2020 | Breast

Comparison of propagation-based CT using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam CT for breast imaging

verfasst von: Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba, Patrycja Baran, Yakov I. Nesterets, Serena Pacile, Susanne Wienbeck, Christian Dullin, Konstantin Pavlov, Anton Maksimenko, Darren Lockie, Sheridan C. Mayo, Harry M. Quiney, Diego Dreossi, Fulvia Arfelli, Giuliana Tromba, Sarah Lewis, Timur E. Gureyev, Patrick C. Brennan

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the image quality of propagation-based phase-contrast computed tomography (PB-CT) using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) based on various radiological image quality criteria.

Methods

Eight excised breast tissue samples of various sizes and containing different lesion types were scanned using PB-CT at a synchrotron facility and using CBBCT at a university-affiliated breast imaging centre. PB-CT scans were performed at two different mean glandular dose (MGD) levels: standard (5.8 mGy) and low (1.5 mGy), for comparison with CBBCT scans at the standard MGD (5.8 mGy). Image quality assessment was carried out using six quality criteria and six independent medical imaging experts in a reading room with mammography workstations. The interobserver agreement between readers was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and image quality was compared between the two breast imaging modalities using the area under the visual grading characteristic curve (AUC_VGC).

Results

Interobserver agreement between the readers showed moderate reliability for five image criteria (ICC: ranging from 0.488 to 0.633) and low reliability for one criterion (image noise) (ICC 0.307). For five image quality criteria (overall quality, perceptible contrast, lesion sharpness, normal tissue interfaces, and calcification visibility), both standard-dose PB-CT images (AUC_VGC 0.958 to 1, p ≤ .05) and low dose PB-CT images (AUC_VGC 0.785 to 0.834, p ≤ .05) were of significantly higher image quality than standard-dose CBBCT images.

Conclusions

Synchrotron-based PB-CT can achieve a significantly higher radiological image quality at a substantially lower radiation dose compared with conventional CBBCT.

Key Points

• PB-CT using synchrotron radiation results in higher image quality than conventional CBBCT for breast imaging.

• PB-CT using synchrotron radiation requires a lower radiation dose than conventional CBBCT for breast imaging.

• PB-CT can help clinicians diagnose patients with breast cancer.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2017) Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books. AIHW, Canberra

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424PubMedCrossRef

Tavakoli Taba S, Brennan PC, Lewis S (2019) Dynamics of breast imaging research: a global scoping review and Sino-Australian comparison case study. PLoS One 14:e0210256PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–1786

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589PubMedCrossRef

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef

Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087PubMedCrossRef

European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF) (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth Edition. Available via https://www.euref.org/europeanguidelines/4th-edition

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2018) BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2018. AIHW, Canberra

10.

Alakhras M, Bourne R, Rickard M, Ng KH, Pietrzyk M, Brennan PC (2013) Digital tomosynthesis: a new future for breast imaging? Clin Radiol 68:e225–e236PubMedCrossRef

11.

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56PubMedCrossRef

12.

Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92PubMedCrossRef

13.

Taba ST, Gureyev TE, Alakhras M, Lewis S, Lockie D, Brennan PC (2018) X-ray phase-contrast technology in breast imaging: principles, options, and clinical application. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:133–145PubMedCrossRef

14.

Dullum JR, Lewis EC, Mayer JA (2000) Rates and correlates of discomfort associated with mammography. Radiology 214:547–552PubMedCrossRef

15.

Wienbeck S, Lotz J, Fischer U (2017) Review of clinical studies and first clinical experiences with a commercially available cone-beam breast CT in Europe. Clin Imaging 42:50–59PubMedCrossRef

16.

Uhlig J, Uhlig A, Biggemann L, Fischer U, Lotz J, Wienbeck S (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 29:1194–1202PubMedCrossRef

17.

Seifert P, Conover D, Zhang Y et al (2014) Evaluation of malignant breast lesions in the diagnostic setting with cone beam breast computed tomography (breast CT): feasibility study. Breast J 20:364–374PubMedCrossRef

18.

He N, Wu YP, Kong Y et al (2016) The utility of breast cone-beam computed tomography, ultrasound, and digital mammography for detecting malignant breast tumors: a prospective study with 212 patients. Eur J Radiol 85:392–403PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR, Yang K, Kwan AL, Miller DF (2008) Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 246:725–733PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

O'Connell A, Conover DL, Zhang Y et al (2010) Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:496–509PubMedCrossRef

21.

Wilkins S, Gureyev T, Gao D, Pogany A, Stevenson A (1996) Phase-contrast imaging using polychromatic hard X-rays. Nature 384:335–338CrossRef

22.

Arfelli F, Assante M, Bonvicini V et al (1998) Low-dose phase contrast x-ray medical imaging. Phys Med Biol 43:2845PubMedCrossRef

23.

Arboleda C, Wang Z, Jefimovs K et al (2019) Towards clinical grating-interferometry mammography. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06362-x

24.

Nesterets YI, Gureyev TE (2014) Noise propagation in x-ray phase-contrast imaging and computed tomography. J Phys D Appl Phys 47:105402CrossRef

25.

Gureyev TE, Nesterets YI, Baran PM et al (2019) Propagation-based X-ray phase-contrast tomography of mastectomy samples using synchrotron radiation. Med Phys. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13842

26.

Longo R, Arfelli F, Bellazzini R et al (2016) Towards breast tomography with synchrotron radiation at Elettra: first images. Phys Med Biol 61:1634–1649PubMedCrossRef

27.

Longo R, Arfelli F, Bonazza D et al (2019) Advancements towards the implementation of clinical phase-contrast breast computed tomography at Elettra. J Synchrotron Radiat 26:1343–1353PubMedCrossRef

28.

Tavakoli Taba S, Baran P, Lewis S et al (2019) Toward improving breast cancer imaging: radiological assessment of propagation-based phase-contrast CT technology. Acad Radiol 26:e79–e89PubMedCrossRef

29.

Baran P, Pacile S, Nesterets YI et al (2017) Optimization of propagation-based x-ray phase-contrast tomography for breast cancer imaging. Phys Med Biol 62:2315–2332PubMedCrossRef

30.

Gureyev T, Mayo S, Nesterets YI et al (2014) Investigation of the imaging quality of synchrotron-based phase-contrast mammographic tomography. J Phys D Appl Phys 47:365401CrossRef

31.

Pacile S, Brun F, Dullin C et al (2015) Clinical application of low-dose phase contrast breast CT: methods for the optimization of the reconstruction workflow. Biomed Opt Express 6:3099–3112PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

32.

Nesterets YI, Gureyev TE, Mayo SC et al (2015) A feasibility study of X-ray phase-contrast mammographic tomography at the Imaging and Medical beamline of the Australian Synchrotron. J Synchrotron Radiat 22:1509–1523PubMedCrossRef

33.

Brombal L, Donato S, Dreossi D et al (2018) Phase-contrast breast CT: the effect of propagation distance. Phys Med Biol 63:24 nt03CrossRef

34.

Brombal L, Golosio B, Arfelli F et al (2019) Monochromatic breast computed tomography with synchrotron radiation: phase-contrast and phase-retrieved image comparison and full-volume reconstruction. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 6:031402

35.

Boss A (2018) Editorial comment: cone-beam and phase contrast CT: new horizons in breast imaging? Eur Radiol 28:3729–3730PubMedCrossRef

36.

Koning Corporation (2015) User’s manual for the Koning Breast CT System User’s Manual for the Koning Breast CT System: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf13/P130025c.pdf,

37.

Castelli E, Tonutti M, Arfelli F et al (2011) Mammography with synchrotron radiation: first clinical experience with phase-detection technique. Radiology 259:684–694PubMedCrossRef

38.

Fedon C, Longo F, Mettivier G, Longo R (2015) GEANT4 for breast dosimetry: parameters optimization study. Phys Med Biol 60:N311–N323PubMedCrossRef

39.

Mettivier G, Fedon C, Di Lillo F et al (2016) Glandular dose in breast computed tomography with synchrotron radiation. Phys Med Biol 61:569–587PubMedCrossRef

40.

Gureyev TE, Nesterets Y, Ternovski D et al (2011) Toolbox for advanced X-ray image processing. SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 81410B-81410B-81414

41.

Brun F, Pacilè S, Accardo A et al (2015) Enhanced and flexible software tools for X-ray computed tomography at the Italian synchrotron radiation facility Elettra. Fundam Inform 141:233–243CrossRef

42.

Paganin D, Mayo SC, Gureyev TE, Miller PR, Wilkins SW (2002) Simultaneous phase and amplitude extraction from a single defocused image of a homogeneous object. J Microsc 206:33–40PubMedCrossRef

43.

Raupach R, Flohr T (2012) Performance evaluation of x-ray differential phase contrast computed tomography (PCT) with respect to medical imaging. Med Phys 39:4761–4774PubMedCrossRef

44.

TS-Imaging Website (2016) http://ts-imaging.science.unimelb.edu.au/Services/Simple/ICUtilXdata.aspx (Accessed: 12 May 2019)

45.

Myers GR, Thomas CDL, Paganin DM, Gureyev TE, Clement JG (2010) A general few-projection method for tomographic reconstruction of samples consisting of several distinct materials. Appl Phys Lett 96:021105CrossRef

46.

Van der Sluis A, van der Vorst HA (1990) SIRT-and CG-type methods for the iterative solution of sparse linear least-squares problems. Linear Algebra Appl 130:257–303CrossRef

47.

Båth M, Månsson LG (2007) Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 80:169–176PubMedCrossRef

48.

Båth M, Hansson J (2016) VGC Analyzer – a software for statistical analysis of multiple-reader multiple-case visual grading characteristics (VGC) studies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 169:46–53PubMedCrossRef

49.

Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428PubMedCrossRef

50.

Lai CJ, Shaw CC, Chen L et al (2007) Visibility of microcalcification in cone beam breast CT: effects of X-ray tube voltage and radiation dose. Med Phys 34:2995–3004PubMedCrossRef

51.

Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF et al (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and nondense breasts. JAMA 315:1784–1786

52.

Wienbeck S, Fischer U, Luftner-Nagel S, Lotz J, Uhlig J (2018) Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT): clinical performance compared to mammography and MRI. Eur Radiol 28:3731–3741PubMedCrossRef

53.

Zhao Y, Brun E, Coan P et al (2012) High-resolution, low-dose phase contrast X-ray tomography for 3D diagnosis of human breast cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:18290–18294PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

54.

Longo R, Tonutti M, Rigon L et al (2014) Clinical study in phase-contrast mammography: image-quality analysis. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 372:20130025

55.

Lewis SJ, Gureyev TE, Baran P et al (2018) Towards clinic-friendly solutions for patient trials in breast cancer phase contrast imaging. Proc. SPIE 10718, 14th International Workshop on Breast Imaging (IWBI 2018), 107181P

56.

Tang R, Xi Y, Chai WM et al (2011) Microbubble-based synchrotron radiation phase contrast imaging: basic study and angiography applications. Phys Med Biol 56:3503–3512PubMedCrossRef

57.

Millard TP, Endrizzi M, Everdell N et al (2015) Evaluation of microbubble contrast agents for dynamic imaging with x-ray phase contrast. Sci Rep 5:12509PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

58.

Wu D, Wong MD, Yang K et al (2018) Using microbubble as contrast agent for high-energy X-ray in-line phase contrast imaging: demonstration and comparison study. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 65:1117–1123PubMed

59.

Lång K, Arboleda C, Forte S et al (2019) Microbubbles as a contrast agent in grating interferometry mammography: an ex vivo proof-of-mechanism study. Eur Radiol Exp 3:19PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Titel: Comparison of propagation-based CT using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam CT for breast imaging
verfasst von: Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba
Patrycja Baran
Yakov I. Nesterets
Serena Pacile
Susanne Wienbeck
Christian Dullin
Konstantin Pavlov
Anton Maksimenko
Darren Lockie
Sheridan C. Mayo
Harry M. Quiney
Diego Dreossi
Fulvia Arfelli
Giuliana Tromba
Sarah Lewis
Timur E. Gureyev
Patrick C. Brennan
Publikationsdatum: 23.01.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06567-0

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Comparison of propagation-based CT using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam CT for breast imaging