No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Development of realistic physical breast phantoms matched to virtual breast phantoms based on human subject data
1.R. E. Hendrick et al., Mammography Quality Control Manual (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 1999).
2.R. E. van Engen et al., “Digital mammography update. European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. S1, Part 1: Acceptance and constancy testing,” European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 4th ed., edited by N. Perry et al. (European Commission, Belgium, 2013).
3.W. Huda, A. M. Sajewicz, K. M. Ogden, and D. R. Dance, “Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system,” Med. Phys. 30(3), 442–448 (2003).
5.C. M. Kuzmiak et al., “Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms,” Med. Phys. 32(10), 3144–3150 (2005).
7.T. Wu, R. H. Moore, E. A. Rafferty, and D. B. Kopans, “A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 31(9), 2636–2647 (2004).
8.A. Tucker et al., “Optimizing configuration parameters of a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system based on carbon nanotube x-ray sources,” Proc. SPIE 8313, 831307 (2012).
10.Y. Lu, B. Lau, Y. Hu, W. Zhao, and G. Gindi, “A simple scatter correction method for dual energy contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis,” Proc. SPIE 9033, 903344 (2014).
11.C. C. Brunner et al., “Evaluation of various mammography phantoms for image quality assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis,” Breast Imaging, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 7361 (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 284–291.
12.S. Vecchio, A. Albanese, P. Vignolio, and A. Taibi, “A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images,” Eur. Radiol. 21(6), 1207–1213 (2011).
13.R. Mahadevan, L. C. Ikejimba, Y. Lin, E. Samei, and J. Y. Lo, “A task-based comparison of two reconstruction algorithms for digital breast tomosynthesis,” Proc. SPIE 9033, 903324 (2014).
14.L. C. Ikejimba et al., “Task-based strategy for optimized contrast enhanced breast imaging: Analysis of six imaging techniques for mammography and tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 41(6), 061908 (14pp.) (2014).
15.L. Cockmartin, H. Bosmans, and N. W. Marshall, “Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 40(8), 081920(17pp.) (2013).
17.C. M. Li, W. P. Segars, J. T. Dobbins III, G. D. Tourassi, and J. M. Boone, “Methodology for generating a 3D computerized breast phantom from empirical data,” Med. Phys. 36(7), 3122–3131 (2009).
18.C. M. L. Hsu, M. L. Palmeri, W. P. Segars, J. T. Dobbins III, and A. I. Veress, “An analysis of the mechanical parameters used for finite element compression of a high-resolution 3D breast phantom,” Med. Phys. 38(10), 5756–5770 (2011).
19.C. M. L. Hsu, M. L. Palmeri, W. P. Segars, A. I. Veress, and J. T. Dobbins III, “Generation of a suite of 3D computer-generated breast phantoms from a limited set of human subject data,” Med. Phys. 40(4), 043703(11pp.) (2013).
20.P. R. Bakic, M. Albert, D. Brzakovic, and A. D. A. Maidment, “Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. I. Breast tissue model and image acquisition simulation,” Med. Phys. 29(9), 2131–2139 (2002).
21.P. R. Bakic, M. Albert, D. Brzakovic, and A. D. A. Maidment, “Mammogram synthesis using a 3D simulation. II. Evaluation of synthetic mammogram texture,” Med. Phys. 29(9), 2140–2151 (2002).
22.P. R. Bakic, M. Albert, D. Brzakovic, and A. D. A. Maidment, “Mammogram synthesis using a three-dimensional simulation. III. Modeling and evaluation of the breast ductal network,” Med. Phys. 30(7), 1914–1925 (2003).
23.K. Bliznakova, Z. Bliznakova, V. Bravou, Z. Kolitsi, and N. Pallikarakis, “A three-dimensional breast software phantom for mammography simulation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 48(22), 3699–3719 (2003).
24.P. R. Bakic, C. Zhang, and A. D. A. Maidment, “Development and characterization of an anthropomorphic breast software phantom based upon region-growing algorithm,” Med. Phys. 38(6), 3165–3176 (2011).
25.B. A. Lau, I. Reiser, R. M. Nishikawa, and P. R. Bakic, “A statistically defined anthropomorphic software breast phantom,” Med. Phys. 9(6), 3375–3385 (2012).
26.J. M. O’Connor, M. Das, C. S. Dider, M. Mahd, and S. Glick, “Generation of voxelized breast phantoms from surgical mastectomy specimens,” Med. Phys. 40(4), 041915 (12pp.) (2013).
27.S. Young, P. R. Bakic, K. J. Myers, R. J. Jennings, and S. Park, “A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data,” Med. Phys. 40(5), 051914 (15pp.) (2013).
28.N. Kiarashi et al., “Development and application of a suite of 4D virtual breast phantoms for optimization and evaluation of breast imaging systems,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 33(7), 1401–1409 (2014).
29.A. K. Carton, P. R. Bakic, C. Ullberg, H. Derand, and A. D. A. Maidment, “Development of a physical 3D anthropomorphic breast phantom,” Med. Phys. 38(2), 891–896 (2011).
30.N. D. Prionas, G. W. Burkett, S. E. McKenney, L. Chen, R. L. Stern, and J. M. Boone, “Development of a patient-specific two-compartment anthropomorphic breast phantom,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57(13), 4293–4307 (2012).
31.K. K. Lindfors, J. M. Boone, T. R. Nelson, K. Yang, A. L. C. Kwan, and D. F. Miller, “Dedicated breast CT: Initial clinical experience,” Radiology 246(3), 725–733 (2008).
32.W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline, “Marching cubes: A high-resolution 3D surface construction algorithm,” ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Graphics 21, 163–169 (1987).
33.T. Mertelmeier, J. Orman, W. Haerer, and M. K. Dudam, “Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device,” Proc. SPIE 6142, 61420F (2006).
34.S. Vedantham and A. Karellas, “X-ray phase contrast imaging of the breast: Analysis of tissue simulating materials,” Med. Phys. 40(4), 041906(8pp.) (2013).
35.R. S. Saunders, E. Samei, J. L. Jesneck, and J. Y. Lo, “Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector,” Med. Phys. 32(2), 588–599 (2005).
36.J. T. Dobbins III, E. Samei, N. T. Ranger, and Y. Chen, “Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. II. Noise power spectrum,” Med. Phys. 33(5), 1466–1475 (2006).
37.A. E. Burgess, F. L. Jacobson, and P. F. Judy, “Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise,” Med. Phys. 28(4), 419–437 (2001).
40.W. P. Segars et al., “Population of 100 realistic, patient-based computerized breast phantoms for multi-modality imaging research,” Proc. SPIE 9033, 90331X (2014).
42.E. Shaheen et al., “The simulation of 3D mass models in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 41, 081913(16pp.) (2014).
Article metrics loading...
Physical phantoms are essential for the development, optimization, and evaluation of x-ray breast imaging systems. Recognizing the major effect of anatomy on image quality and clinical performance, such phantoms should ideally reflect the three-dimensional structure of the human breast. Currently, there is no commercially available three-dimensional physical breast phantom that is anthropomorphic. The authors present the development of a new suite of physical breast phantoms based on human data.
The phantoms were designed to match the extended cardiac-torso virtual breast phantoms that were based on dedicated breast computed tomography images of human subjects. The phantoms were fabricated by high-resolution multimaterial additive manufacturing (3D printing) technology. The glandular equivalency of the photopolymer materials was measured relative to breast tissue-equivalent plastic materials. Based on the current state-of-the-art in the technology and available materials, two variations were fabricated. The first was a dual-material phantom, the Doublet. Fibroglandular tissue and skin were represented by the most radiographically dense material available; adipose tissue was represented by the least radiographically dense material. The second variation, the Singlet, was fabricated with a single material to represent fibroglandular tissue and skin. It was subsequently filled with adipose-equivalent materials including oil, beeswax, and permanent urethane-based polymer. Simulated microcalcification clusters were further included in the phantoms via crushed eggshells. The phantoms were imaged and characterized visually and quantitatively.
The mammographic projections and tomosynthesis reconstructed images of the fabricated phantoms yielded realistic breast background. The mammograms of the phantoms demonstrated close correlation with simulated mammographic projection images of the corresponding virtual phantoms. Furthermore, power-law descriptions of the phantom images were in general agreement with real human images. The Singlet approach offered more realistic contrast as compared to the Doublet approach, but at the expense of air bubbles and air pockets that formed during the filling process.
The presented physical breast phantoms and their matching virtual breast phantoms offer realistic breast anatomy, patient variability, and ease of use, making them a potential candidate for performing both system quality control testing and virtual clinical trials.
Full text loading...
Most read this month