Photon-counting spectral phase-contrast mammography

Fredenberg, Erik; Roessl, Ewald; Kœhler, Thomas; Stevendaal, Udo van; Schulze-Wenck, I.; Wieberneit, Nataly; Stampanoni, Marco; Wang, Zhe; Ra, Kubik-Huch; Hauser, Nik; Lundqvist, Mats; Danielsson, Mats; Åslund, Magnus

doi:10.1117/12.910615

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter can be achieved by increasing the x-ray flux, by using a higher Talbot order, and by improving the fringe visibility of the system. Furthermore, energy resolved detection, [25][26][27] as supported by the next generation MicroDose system, can further improve the SNR. [28][29][30] Since our ultimate goal is phase-contrast mammography, future work will also include the imaging of breast samples.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slit‐scanning differential x‐ray phase‐contrast mammography: Proof‐of‐concept experimental studies

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this work is to investigate the feasibility of grating-based, differential phase-contrast, full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in terms of the requirements for field-ofview (FOV), mechanical stability, and scan time. Methods: A rigid, actuator-free Talbot interferometric unit was designed and integrated into a state-of-the-art x-ray slit-scanning mammography system, namely, the Philips MicroDose L30 FFDM system. A dedicated phase-acquisition and phase retrieval method was developed and implemented that exploits the redundancy of the data acquisition inherent to the slit-scanning approach to image generation of the system. No modifications to the scan arm motion control were implemented. Results: The authors achieve a FOV of 160 × 196 mm consisting of two disjoint areas measuring 77 × 196 mm with a gap of 6 mm between them. Typical scanning times vary between 10 and 15 s and dose levels are lower than typical FFDM doses for conventional scans with identical acquisition parameters due to the presence of the source-grating G 0 . Only minor to moderate artifacts are observed in the three reconstructed images, indicating that mechanical vibrations induced by other system components do not prevent the use of the platform for phase contrast imaging. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to integrate x-ray gratings hardware into a clinical mammography unit. The results demonstrate that a scanning differential phase contrast FFDM system that meets the requirements of FOV, stability, scan time, and dose can be build. C 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. [http://dx

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slit‐scanning differential x‐ray phase‐contrast mammography: Proof‐of‐concept experimental studies

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A design energy of 25 keV was chosen for all four scenarios as this was considered reasonable for a DPCI mammography system with the question of the optimal spectrum still being investigated. We note that the optimal spectra for DPCI mammography are likely to be somewhat higher in kVp than for conventional mammography [29,30]. This is a direct consequence of the E −2 energy dependence of coherent scatter when compared with the E −3 energy dependence of the photoelectric effect.…”

Section: Boundary Conditions For X-ray Phase-contrast Imaging (A) Defmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical boundary conditions for grating-based differential phase-contrast mammography

Roessl

Daerr

Kœhler

et al. 2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in grating-based differential phase-contrast imaging (DPCI) has gained increasing momentum in the past couple of years. The first results on the potential clinical benefits of the technique for X-ray mammography are becoming available and indicate improvements in terms of general image quality, the delineation of lesions versus the background tissue and the visibility of microcalcifications. In this paper, we investigate some aspects related to the technical feasibility of DPCI for human X-ray mammography. After a short introduction to state-of-the-art fullfield digital mammography in terms of technical aspects as well as clinical aspects, we put together boundary conditions for DPCI. We then discuss the implications for system design in a comparative manner for systems with two-dimensional detectors versus slit-scanning systems, stating advantages and disadvantages of the two designs. Finally, focusing on a slit-scanning system, we outline a possible concept for phase acquisition.

show abstract

“…The other point is that the diffraction angle in high energy is small, which would make difficult to detect the interference fringe shift of low energy. Photon counting detectors (PCDs) have a potential to solve these problems and improve visibility by resolving the feasible energy range 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvement of the visibility for x-ray phase contrast imaging using photon counting detector

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the case of employing Talbot interferometer to the medical imaging, a practical X-ray tube should be combined with the interferometer. Practical x-ray tubes radiate continuous X-rays and the interference intensity (so-called visibility) becomes worse because of the wide spectrum of continuous X-rays. In order to achieve high visibility, we have estimated the visibility improvement effect using the photon counting detector (PCD).The detected spectra using a 2D imaging PCD are distorted due to charge sharing and pileup, which would make visibility worse. First, we have made a model for Monte-Calro calculation to calculate the distorted spectra and point spread function (PSF) for the charge sharing. The calculation model is based on the summation of the monochromatic response function which is the detected charge on the interested pixel for one photon injection. Distortion of spectra was calculated taking into account the charge sharing effect and pulse pileup.Then we have obtained an estimation result of the visibility improvement effect using the PCD of CdTe. The visibilities of the energy integrating detector (EID) of CdTe and the PCD are calculated and compared, where the Talbot interferometer type is a fringe scanning using phase grating and absorption grating. Visibility of the EID is 36% and that of PCD is 60% without pileup effect. In high dose rate condition, the CNR decreasing ratio is remarkable. The visibility decreasing effect and quantum noise increasing effect are correlated and the both effect worsen the CNR.

show abstract

Photon-counting spectral phase-contrast mammography

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

Slit‐scanning differential x‐ray phase‐contrast mammography: Proof‐of‐concept experimental studies

Slit‐scanning differential x‐ray phase‐contrast mammography: Proof‐of‐concept experimental studies

Clinical boundary conditions for grating-based differential phase-contrast mammography

Improvement of the visibility for x-ray phase contrast imaging using photon counting detector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About