Advertisement

Investigation of contrast-enhanced subtracted breast CT images with MAP-EM based on projection-based weighting imaging

  • Zhengdong Zhou
  • Shaolin Guan
  • Runchao Xin
  • Jianbo Li
Scientific Paper

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced subtracted breast computer tomography (CESBCT) images acquired using energy-resolved photon counting detector can be helpful to enhance the visibility of breast tumors. In such technology, one challenge is the limited number of photons in each energy bin, thereby possibly leading to high noise in separate images from each energy bin, the projection-based weighted image, and the subtracted image. In conventional low-dose CT imaging, iterative image reconstruction provides a superior signal-to-noise compared with the filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm. In this paper, maximum a posteriori expectation maximization (MAP-EM) based on projection-based weighting imaging for reconstruction of CESBCT images acquired using an energy-resolving photon counting detector is proposed, and its performance was investigated in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). The simulation study shows that MAP-EM based on projection-based weighting imaging can improve the CNR in CESBCT images by 117.7%–121.2% compared with FBP based on projection-based weighting imaging method. When compared with the energy-integrating imaging that uses the MAP-EM algorithm, projection-based weighting imaging that uses the MAP-EM algorithm can improve the CNR of CESBCT images by 10.5%–13.3%. In conclusion, MAP-EM based on projection-based weighting imaging shows significant improvement the CNR of the CESBCT image compared with FBP based on projection-based weighting imaging, and MAP-EM based on projection-based weighting imaging outperforms MAP-EM based on energy-integrating imaging for CESBCT imaging.

Keywords

Photon counting detector Projection-based weighting Contrast-enhanced subtracted breast computer tomography (CESBCT) Maximum a posteriori expectation maximization algorithm 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51575256), the Key Research and Development Plan (Social Development) of Jiangsu Province (No. BE2017730), the Key Industrial Research and Development Project of Chongqing, and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Roessl E, Proksa R (2007) K-edge imaging in X-ray computed tomography using multi-bin photon counting detectors. Phys Med Biol 52:4679–4696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee Y, Lee S, Kim HJ (2016) Comparison of spectral CT imaging methods based a photon-counting detector: experimental study. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res 815:68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee SW, Choi YN, Cho HM, Lee YJ, Ryu HJ, Kim HJ (2012) A Monte Carlo simulation study of the effect of energy windows in computed tomography images based on an energy-resolved photon counting detector. Phys Med Biol 57:4931–4949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sossin A, Rebuffel V, Tabary J, Létang JM, Freud N, Verger L (2016) A novel scatter separation method for multi-energy X-ray imaging. Phys Med Biol 61:4711–4728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ballabriga R, Campbell M, Heijne E, Llopart X, Tlustos L, Wong W (2011) Medipix3: a 64 k pixel detector readout chip working in single photon counting mode with improved spectrometric performance. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys 633:S15–S18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meng B, Cong W, Xi Y, De Man B, Yang J, Wang G (2017) Model and reconstruction of a K-edge contrast agent distribution with an X-ray photon-counting detector. Opt Express 25:9378–9392CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tanaka S, Sato N, Fujioka H, Takahashi Y, Kimura K, Iwamoto M, Uchiyama K (2012) Use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography in clinical staging of asymptomatic breast cancer patients to detect asymptomatic distant metastases. Oncol Lett 3:772–776PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le HQ, Ducote JL, Molloi S (2010) Radiation dose reduction using a CdZnTe-based computed tomography system: comparison to flat-panel detectors. Med Phys 37:1225–1236CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ziegler A, Köhler T, Proksa R (2007) Noise and resolution in images reconstructed with FBP and OSC algorithms for CT. Med Phys 34:585–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lazaro D, Buvat I, Loudos G, Strul D, Santin G, Giokaris N et al (2004) Validation of the GATE Monte Carlo simulation platform for modelling a CsI(Tl) scintillation camera dedicated to small-animal imaging. Phys Med Biol 49:271–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choi S, Lee S, Choi Y, Kim H (2014) A feasibility study of projection-based energy weighting based on a photon-counting detector in contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: a simulation study. J Korean Phys Soc 64:1900–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho HM, Kim HJ, Choi YN, Lee SW, Ryu HJ, Lee YJ (2013) The effects of photon flux on energy spectra and imaging characteristics in a photon-counting X-ray detector. Phys Med Biol 58:4865–4879CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Punnoose J, Xu J, Sisniega A, Zbijewski W, Siewerdsen JH (2016) Technical note: spektr 3.0—a computational tool for X-ray spectrum modeling and analysis. Med Phys 43:4711–4717CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caldeira L, Scheins JJ, Almeida P, Seabra J, Herzog H (2010) Maximum a posteriori reconstruction using PRESTO and PET/MR data acquired simultaneously with the 3TMR-BrainPET. In: Nuclear science symposium conference record, 2010 IEEE, pp 2879–2884Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen Y, Ma J, Feng Q, Luo L, Shi P, Chen W (2008) Nonlocal prior bayesian tomographic reconstruction. J Math Imaging Vis 30:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shikhaliev PM (2008) Computed tomography with energy-resolved detection: a feasibility study. Phys Med Biol 53:1475–1495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt TG (2009) Optimal “image-based” weighting for energy-resolved CT. Med Phys 36:3018–3027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalluri KS, Mahd M, Glick SJ (2013) Investigation of energy weighting using an energy discriminating photon counting detector for breast CT. Med Phys 40:081923CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilatschmidt T (2013) Experimental study of optimal energy weighting in energy-resolved CT using a CZT detector. SPIE Med Imaging 8668:303–311Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Altunbas MC, Shaw C, Chen L, Wang T, Tu S (2006) Effects of scattered radiation and beam quality on low contrast performance in cone beam breast CT. In: Proceedings of SPIE—the international society for optical engineering, vol 6142, p 614236Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhengdong Zhou
    • 1
  • Shaolin Guan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Runchao Xin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jianbo Li
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical StructuresNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Science and EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations