Advertisement

Image Reconstruction via Variational Network for Real-Time Hand-Held Sound-Speed Imaging

  • Valery Vishnevskiy
  • Sergio J. Sanabria
  • Orcun Goksel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11074)

Abstract

Speed-of-sound is a biomechanical property for quantitative tissue differentiation, with great potential as a new ultrasound-based image modality. A conventional ultrasound array transducer can be used together with an acoustic mirror, or so-called reflector, to reconstruct sound-speed images from time-of-flight measurements to the reflector collected between transducer element pairs, which constitutes a challenging problem of limited-angle computed tomography. For this problem, we herein present a variational network based image reconstruction architecture that is based on optimization loop unrolling, and provide an efficient training protocol of this network architecture on fully synthetic inclusion data. Our results indicate that the learned model presents good generalization ability, being able to reconstruct images with significantly different statistics compared to the training set. Complex inclusion geometries were shown to be successfully reconstructed, also improving over the prior-art by 23% in reconstruction error and by 10% in contrast on synthetic data. In a phantom study, we demonstrated the detection of multiple inclusions that were not distinguishable by prior-art reconstruction, meanwhile improving the contrast by 27% for a stiff inclusion and by 219% for a soft inclusion. Our reconstruction algorithm takes approximately 10 ms, enabling its use as a real-time imaging method on an ultrasound machine, for which we are demonstrating an example preliminary setup herein.

Keywords

Deep learning Speed-of-sound Image reconstruction 

References

  1. 1.
    Adler, J., Öktem, O.: Solving ill-posed inverse problems using iterative deep neural networks. Inverse Probl. 33(12), 124007 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, S., Parikh, N., Chu, E., Peleato, B., Eckstein, J.: Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Found. Trends ML 3(1), 1–122 (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duric, N., et al.: In-vivo imaging results with ultrasound tomography: report on an on-going study at the Karmanos cancer institute. In: SPIE Med Imaging, pp. 76290M–1/M–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duric, N., et al.: Detection of breast cancer with ultrasound tomography: first results with the computed ultrasound risk evaluation (cure) prototype. Med. Phys. 34(2), 773–785 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hammernik, K., Klatzer, T., Kobler, E., Recht, M.P., Sodickson, D.K., Pock, T., Knoll, F.: Learning a variational network for reconstruction of accelerated MRI data. MRM 79, 3055–3071 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammernik, K., Würfl, T., Pock, T., Maier, A.: A deep learning architecture for limited-angle computed tomography reconstruction. Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2017, 92–97 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Imbault, M., et al.: Robust sound speed estimation for ultrasound-based hepatic steatosis assessment. Phys. Med. Biol. 62(9), 3582 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jirik, R., et al.: Sound-speed image reconstruction in sparse-aperture 3-D ultrasound transmission tomography. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 59(2) (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)
  10. 10.
    Krueger, M., Burow, V., Hiltawsky, K., Ermert, H.: Limited angle ultrasonic transmission tomography of the compressed female breast. In: Ultrasonics Symposium, vol. 2, pp. 1345–1348. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Qu, X., et al.: Limb muscle sound speed estimation by ultrasound computed tomography excluding receivers in bone shadow. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, p. 101391 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rudin, L., Osher, S., Fatemi, E.: Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 60(1–4), 259–268 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sak, M., et al.: Comparison of breast density measurements made with ultrasound tomography and mammography. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, pp. 94190R–1/R–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanabria, S.J., Goksel, O.: Hand-held sound-speed imaging based on ultrasound reflector delineation. In: Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M.R., Unal, G., Wells, W. (eds.) MICCAI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9900, pp. 568–576. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46720-7_66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanabria, S.J., et al.: Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: a novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening? Eur. Radiol. (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tovey, R., et al.: Directional sinogram inpainting for limited angle tomography. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09991 (2018)

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valery Vishnevskiy
    • 1
  • Sergio J. Sanabria
    • 1
  • Orcun Goksel
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer-assisted Applications in Medicine GroupETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations