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, 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","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, 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\",\"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}
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.
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.