4.7 Article

Improved Diagnostics by Assessing the Micromorphology of Breast Calcifications via X-Ray Dark-Field Radiography

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep36991

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG Cluster of Excellence Munich-Centre for Advanced Photonics
  2. DFG Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz program
  3. TUM Institute for Advanced Study
  4. German Excellence Initiative
  5. Karlsruhe Nano Micro Facility (KNMF), a Helmholtz Research Infrastructure at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Breast microcalcifications play an essential role in the detection and evaluation of early breast cancer in clinical diagnostics. However, in digital mammography, microcalcifications are merely graded with respect to their global appearance within the mammogram, while their interior microstructure remains spatially unresolved and therefore not considered in cancer risk stratification. In this article, we exploit the sub-pixel resolution sensitivity of X-ray dark-field contrast for clinical microcalcification assessment. We demonstrate that the micromorphology, rather than chemical composition of microcalcification clusters (as hypothesised by recent literature), determines their absorption and small-angle scattering characteristics. We show that a quantitative classification of the inherent microstructure as ultra-fine, fine, pleomorphic and coarse textured is possible. Insights underlying the micromorphological nature of breast calcifications are verified by comprehensive high-resolution micro-CT measurements. We test the determined microtexture of microcalcifications as an indicator for malignancy and demonstrate its potential to improve breast cancer diagnosis, by providing a non-invasive tool for sub-resolution microcalcification assessment. Our results indicate that dark-field imaging of microcalcifications may enhance the diagnostic validity of current microcalcification analysis and reduce the number of invasive procedures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据