Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 (AUCVGC).

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 (AUCVGC 0.958 to 1, p ≤ .05) and low dose PB-CT images (AUCVGC 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AUCVGC :

Area under the visual grading characteristic curve

CBBCT:

Cone-beam breast CT

DBT:

Digital breast tomosynthesis

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

iFBP:

Iterative filtered back projection

MG:

Mammography

MGD:

Mean glandular dose

MRMC:

Multiple-reader, multiple-case

PB-CT:

Propagation-based phase-contrast CT

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

SIRT:

Simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique

TIE-Hom:

Homogeneous transport of intensity equation

VGC:

Visual grading characteristics

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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 68:394–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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:e0210256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

  5. 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 14:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 92:1081–1087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. 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–e236

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 267:47–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 211:133–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 42:50–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 29:1194–1202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 20:364–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 85:392–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 195:496–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 47:105402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 61:1634–1649

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 26:1343–1353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–e89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 62:2315–2332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 47:365401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 6:3099–3112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 22:1509–1523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brombal L, Donato S, Dreossi D et al (2018) Phase-contrast breast CT: the effect of propagation distance. Phys Med Biol 63:24 nt03

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 259:684–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fedon C, Longo F, Mettivier G, Longo R (2015) GEANT4 for breast dosimetry: parameters optimization study. Phys Med Biol 60:N311–N323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 141:233–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 206:33–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 96:021105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 130:257–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 80:169–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 169:46–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 34:2995–3004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 28:3731–3741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 109:18290–18294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 56:3503–3512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 5:12509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 65:1117–1123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 3:19

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (#APP1138283). Travel funding was also provided by the International Synchrotron Access Program (ISAP) managed by the ANSTO - Australian Synchrotron and funded by the Australian Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, 2141, Australia

    Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba, Sarah Lewis, Timur E. Gureyev & Patrick C. Brennan

  2. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    Patrycja Baran, Harry M. Quiney & Timur E. Gureyev

  3. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia

    Yakov I. Nesterets & Sheridan C. Mayo

  4. University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, 2351, Australia

    Yakov I. Nesterets, Konstantin Pavlov & Timur E. Gureyev

  5. Elettra - Sincrotrone, Basovizza, 34149, Trieste, Italy

    Serena Pacile, Christian Dullin, Diego Dreossi & Giuliana Tromba

  6. University Medical Center Goettingen, 37075, Gottingen, Lower Saxony, Germany

    Susanne Wienbeck & Christian Dullin

  7. Max-Planck-Institute for Experimental Medicine, 37075, Gottingen, Lower Saxony, Germany

    Christian Dullin

  8. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand

    Konstantin Pavlov

  9. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, 3800, Australia

    Konstantin Pavlov & Timur E. Gureyev

  10. Australian Synchrotron, ANSTO, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia

    Anton Maksimenko

  11. Maroondah BreastScreen, EasternHealth, Ringwood, Victoria, 3135, Australia

    Darren Lockie

  12. University of Trieste and INFN, 34149, Trieste, Italy

    Fulvia Arfelli

Authors
  1. Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrycja Baran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yakov I. Nesterets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Serena Pacile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susanne Wienbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian Dullin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Konstantin Pavlov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anton Maksimenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Darren Lockie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sheridan C. Mayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Harry M. Quiney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Diego Dreossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Fulvia Arfelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Giuliana Tromba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Sarah Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Timur E. Gureyev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Patrick C. Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Patrick Brennan.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Two of the authors have significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Prospective

• Experimental

• Multicentre study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tavakoli Taba, S., Baran, P., Nesterets, Y.I. et al. Comparison of propagation-based CT using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam CT for breast imaging. Eur Radiol 30, 2740–2750 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06567-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06567-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation