Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

Comparing the imaging performance of computed super resolution and magnification tomosynthesis
Author(s): Tristan D. Maidment; Trevor L. Vent; William S. Ferris; David E. Wurtele; Raymond J. Acciavatti; Andrew D. A. Maidment
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $17.00 $21.00

Paper Abstract

Computed super-resolution (SR) is a method of reconstructing images with pixels that are smaller than the detector element size; superior spatial resolution is achieved through the elimination of aliasing and alteration of the sampling function imposed by the reconstructed pixel aperture. By comparison, magnification mammography is a method of projection imaging that uses geometric magnification to increase spatial resolution. This study explores the development and application of magnification digital breast tomosynthesis (MDBT). Four different acquisition geometries are compared in terms of various image metrics. High-contrast spatial resolution was measured in various axes using a lead star pattern. A modified Defrise phantom was used to determine the low-frequency spatial resolution. An anthropomorphic phantom was used to simulate clinical imaging. Each experiment was conducted at three different magnifications: contact (1.04x), MAG1 (1.3x), and MAG2 (1.6x). All images were taken on our next generation tomosynthesis system, an in-house solution designed to optimize SR. It is demonstrated that both computed SR and MDBT (MAG1 and MAG2) provide improved spatial resolution over non-SR contact imaging. To achieve the highest resolution, SR and MDBT should be combined. However, MDBT is adversely affected by patient motion at higher magnifications. In addition, MDBT requires more radiation dose and delays diagnosis, since MDBT would be conducted upon recall. By comparison, SR can be conducted with the original screening data. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that computed SR and MDBT are both viable methods of imaging the breast.

Paper Details

Date Published: 9 March 2017
PDF: 10 pages
Proc. SPIE 10132, Medical Imaging 2017: Physics of Medical Imaging, 1013222 (9 March 2017); doi: 10.1117/12.2255564
Show Author Affiliations
Tristan D. Maidment, Univ. of Pennsylvania (United States)
Trevor L. Vent, Univ. of Pennsylvania (United States)
William S. Ferris, Univ. of Pennsylvania (United States)
David E. Wurtele, Univ. of Pennsylvania (United States)
Raymond J. Acciavatti, Univ. of Pennsylvania (United States)
Andrew D. A. Maidment, Univ. of Pennsylvania (United States)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 10132:
Medical Imaging 2017: Physics of Medical Imaging
Thomas G. Flohr; Joseph Y. Lo; Taly Gilat Schmidt, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top
Sign in to read the full article
Create a free SPIE account to get access to
premium articles and original research
Forgot your username?