三种同步辐射低剂量相衬ct重建算法的比较

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Medical physics Pub Date : 2025-07-15 DOI:10.1002/mp.17950
Sandro Donato, Simone Caputo, Luca Brombal, Bruno Golosio, Renata Longo, Giuliana Tromba, Raffaele G. Agostino, Gianluigi Greco, Benedicta Arhatari, Chris Hall, Anton Maksimenko, Daniel Hausermann, Darren Lockie, Jane Fox, Beena Kumar, Sarah Lewis, Patrick C. Brennan, Harry M. Quiney, Seyedamir T. Taba, Timur E. Gureyev
{"title":"三种同步辐射低剂量相衬ct重建算法的比较","authors":"Sandro Donato,&nbsp;Simone Caputo,&nbsp;Luca Brombal,&nbsp;Bruno Golosio,&nbsp;Renata Longo,&nbsp;Giuliana Tromba,&nbsp;Raffaele G. Agostino,&nbsp;Gianluigi Greco,&nbsp;Benedicta Arhatari,&nbsp;Chris Hall,&nbsp;Anton Maksimenko,&nbsp;Daniel Hausermann,&nbsp;Darren Lockie,&nbsp;Jane Fox,&nbsp;Beena Kumar,&nbsp;Sarah Lewis,&nbsp;Patrick C. Brennan,&nbsp;Harry M. Quiney,&nbsp;Seyedamir T. Taba,&nbsp;Timur E. Gureyev","doi":"10.1002/mp.17950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Phase-contrast breast CT imaging holds promise for improved diagnostic accuracy, but an optimal reconstruction algorithm must balance objective image quality metrics with subjective radiologist preferences.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This study systematically compares three reconstruction algorithms—filtered back projection (FBP), unified tomographic reconstruction (UTR), and customized simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (cSART)—to identify the most suitable approach for phase-contrast breast CT imaging.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Fresh mastectomy samples were scanned at the Australian synchrotron using monochromatic 32 keV X-rays, a mean glandular dose of 2 mGy, flat-panel detectors with 0.1 mm pixels, and 6-m distance between the rotation stage and the detector. Paganin's phase retrieval method was used in conjunction with all three CT reconstruction algorithms. Objective metrics, including spatial resolution, contrast, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise, were evaluated alongside subjective assessments by seven experienced radiologists. Ratings included perceptible contrast, sharpness, noise, calcification visibility, and overall quality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>cSART excelled in objective metrics, outperforming UTR and FBP. However, subjective evaluations favored FBP due to its higher image contrast, revealing a discrepancy between objective and subjective assessments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The findings highlight the contrast-focused nature of radiologists’ subjective assessments and the potential of cSART for delivering superior objective image quality. These insights inform the development of hybrid evaluation tools and guide clinical translation for future live patient imaging studies.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18384,"journal":{"name":"Medical physics","volume":"52 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mp.17950","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of three reconstruction algorithms for low-dose phase-contrast computed tomography of the breast with synchrotron radiation\",\"authors\":\"Sandro Donato,&nbsp;Simone Caputo,&nbsp;Luca Brombal,&nbsp;Bruno Golosio,&nbsp;Renata Longo,&nbsp;Giuliana Tromba,&nbsp;Raffaele G. Agostino,&nbsp;Gianluigi Greco,&nbsp;Benedicta Arhatari,&nbsp;Chris Hall,&nbsp;Anton Maksimenko,&nbsp;Daniel Hausermann,&nbsp;Darren Lockie,&nbsp;Jane Fox,&nbsp;Beena Kumar,&nbsp;Sarah Lewis,&nbsp;Patrick C. Brennan,&nbsp;Harry M. Quiney,&nbsp;Seyedamir T. Taba,&nbsp;Timur E. Gureyev\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mp.17950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Phase-contrast breast CT imaging holds promise for improved diagnostic accuracy, but an optimal reconstruction algorithm must balance objective image quality metrics with subjective radiologist preferences.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study systematically compares three reconstruction algorithms—filtered back projection (FBP), unified tomographic reconstruction (UTR), and customized simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (cSART)—to identify the most suitable approach for phase-contrast breast CT imaging.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Fresh mastectomy samples were scanned at the Australian synchrotron using monochromatic 32 keV X-rays, a mean glandular dose of 2 mGy, flat-panel detectors with 0.1 mm pixels, and 6-m distance between the rotation stage and the detector. Paganin's phase retrieval method was used in conjunction with all three CT reconstruction algorithms. Objective metrics, including spatial resolution, contrast, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise, were evaluated alongside subjective assessments by seven experienced radiologists. Ratings included perceptible contrast, sharpness, noise, calcification visibility, and overall quality.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>cSART excelled in objective metrics, outperforming UTR and FBP. However, subjective evaluations favored FBP due to its higher image contrast, revealing a discrepancy between objective and subjective assessments.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The findings highlight the contrast-focused nature of radiologists’ subjective assessments and the potential of cSART for delivering superior objective image quality. These insights inform the development of hybrid evaluation tools and guide clinical translation for future live patient imaging studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical physics\",\"volume\":\"52 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mp.17950\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17950\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17950","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

乳腺CT相位对比成像有望提高诊断准确性,但最佳重建算法必须平衡客观图像质量指标与主观放射科医生的偏好。本研究系统比较了滤波后投影(FBP)、统一层析重建(UTR)和定制同步代数重建技术(cSART)三种重建算法,以确定最适合乳腺CT相衬成像的方法。方法在澳大利亚同步加速器上使用单色32 keV x射线扫描新鲜乳房切除术标本,平均腺体剂量为2 mGy,平板探测器像素为0.1 mm,旋转台与探测器之间距离为6 m。Paganin相位恢复法与三种CT重建算法结合使用。客观指标,包括空间分辨率、对比度、信噪比和噪声对比,由7名经验丰富的放射科医生与主观评估一起进行评估。评分包括可感知的对比度、清晰度、噪音、钙化可见度和整体质量。结果cSART在客观指标上优于UTR和FBP。然而,由于FBP图像对比度较高,主观评价倾向于FBP,从而揭示了客观评价与主观评价之间的差异。结论:研究结果强调了放射科医生主观评估的对比聚焦性质,以及cSART提供卓越客观图像质量的潜力。这些见解为混合评估工具的发展提供了信息,并指导了未来活体患者成像研究的临床翻译。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of three reconstruction algorithms for low-dose phase-contrast computed tomography of the breast with synchrotron radiation

Comparison of three reconstruction algorithms for low-dose phase-contrast computed tomography of the breast with synchrotron radiation

Background

Phase-contrast breast CT imaging holds promise for improved diagnostic accuracy, but an optimal reconstruction algorithm must balance objective image quality metrics with subjective radiologist preferences.

Purpose

This study systematically compares three reconstruction algorithms—filtered back projection (FBP), unified tomographic reconstruction (UTR), and customized simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (cSART)—to identify the most suitable approach for phase-contrast breast CT imaging.

Methods

Fresh mastectomy samples were scanned at the Australian synchrotron using monochromatic 32 keV X-rays, a mean glandular dose of 2 mGy, flat-panel detectors with 0.1 mm pixels, and 6-m distance between the rotation stage and the detector. Paganin's phase retrieval method was used in conjunction with all three CT reconstruction algorithms. Objective metrics, including spatial resolution, contrast, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise, were evaluated alongside subjective assessments by seven experienced radiologists. Ratings included perceptible contrast, sharpness, noise, calcification visibility, and overall quality.

Results

cSART excelled in objective metrics, outperforming UTR and FBP. However, subjective evaluations favored FBP due to its higher image contrast, revealing a discrepancy between objective and subjective assessments.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the contrast-focused nature of radiologists’ subjective assessments and the potential of cSART for delivering superior objective image quality. These insights inform the development of hybrid evaluation tools and guide clinical translation for future live patient imaging studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical physics
Medical physics 医学-核医学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
15.80%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Medical Physics publishes original, high impact physics, imaging science, and engineering research that advances patient diagnosis and therapy through contributions in 1) Basic science developments with high potential for clinical translation 2) Clinical applications of cutting edge engineering and physics innovations 3) Broadly applicable and innovative clinical physics developments Medical Physics is a journal of global scope and reach. By publishing in Medical Physics your research will reach an international, multidisciplinary audience including practicing medical physicists as well as physics- and engineering based translational scientists. We work closely with authors of promising articles to improve their quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信