Quantification of breast density using dual-energy mammography with liquid phantom calibration.
Quantification of breast density using dual-energy mammography with liquid phantom calibration.
复制标题
使用双能乳腺 X 线摄影和液体体模校准对乳腺密度进行量化。
DOI：
10.1088/0031-9155/59/14/3985
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Molloi,Sabee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lam,AlfonsoR;Ding,Huanjun;Molloi,Sabee
乳腺密度是公认的乳腺癌潜在危险因素。然而，乳房密度的准确量化是乳房X线照相术中的一项具有挑战性的任务。由于模型的化学成分，目前使用塑料乳房等效模型进行校准，双能乳房 X 线摄影的精度有限。为了提高乳腺密度测量的准确性，我们采用了乳腺等效液体体模进行双能量校准。为了设计这些模型，选择了三种液体化合物：水、异丙醇和甘油。从 NIST 数据库获得的腺体和脂肪组织的化学成分用作参考材料。模拟了不同乳房密度（0％至100％）和厚度（1至8厘米）的液体体模的双能信号。腺体和脂肪组织厚度是根据信号的高阶多项式估计的。我们的结果表明，乳房等效液体模型的线性衰减系数与目标材料的线性衰减系数相匹配。测量的乳腺密度数据与已知的乳腺密度数据之间的比较显示出线性相关性，斜率接近 1，非零截距为 7%，而塑料模型的斜率为 0.6，非零截距为 8%。对于不同的乳房厚度和不同的管电压，从液体校准模型得出的乳房密度结果显示出比从塑料模型得出的结果更高的准确性。我们使用液体模型进行实验模型研究，然后将计算出的乳房密度与使用牛组织模型获得的乳房密度进行比较。实验数据与已知值有良好的相关性，斜率接近1（∼1.1）。总之，我们的结果表明液体模型是双能乳腺 X 线摄影校准的可靠替代方案，并且可以更好地再现目标材料的化学性质。
Breast density is a widely recognized potential risk factor for breast cancer. However, accurate quantification of breast density is a challenging task in mammography. The current use of plastic breast-equivalent phantoms for calibration provides limited accuracy in dual-energy mammography due to the chemical composition of the phantom. We implemented a breast-equivalent liquid phantom for dual-energy calibration in order to improve the accuracy of breast density measurement. To design these phantoms, three liquid compounds were chosen: water, isopropyl alcohol, and glycerol. Chemical compositions of glandular and adipose tissues, obtained from NIST database, were used as reference materials. Dual-energy signal of the liquid phantom at different breast densities (0% to 100%) and thicknesses (1 to 8 cm) were simulated. Glandular and adipose tissue thicknesses were estimated from a higher order polynomial of the signals. Our results indicated that the linear attenuation coefficients of the breast-equivalent liquid phantoms match those of the target material. Comparison between measured and known breast density data shows a linear correlation with a slope close to 1 and a non-zero intercept of 7%, while plastic phantoms showed a slope of 0.6 and a non-zero intercept of 8%. Breast density results derived from the liquid calibration phantoms showed higher accuracy than those derived from the plastic phantoms for different breast thicknesses and various tube voltages. We performed experimental phantom studies using liquid phantoms and then compared the computed breast density with those obtained using a bovine tissue model. The experimental data and the known values were in good correlation with a slope close to 1 (∼ 1.1). In conclusion, our results indicate that liquid phantoms are a reliable alternative for calibration in dual-energy mammography and better reproduce the chemical properties of the target material.