4.6 Article

Development of ultrasound tomography for breast imaging: Technical assessment

期刊

MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 1375-1386

出版社

AMER ASSOC PHYSICISTS MEDICINE AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1118/1.1897463

关键词

breast cancer; ultrasound tomography; diagnostic imaging; tissue characterization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ultrasound imaging is widely used in medicine because of its benign characteristics and real-time capabilities. Physics theory suggests that the application of tomographic techniques may allow ultrasound imaging to reach its full potential as a diagnostic tool allowing it to compete with other tomographic modalities such as x-ray computer tomography, and MRI. This paper describes the construction and use of a prototype tomographic scanner and reports on the feasibility of implementing tomographic theory in practice and the potential of ultrasound (US) tomography in diagnostic imaging. Data were collected with the prototype by scanning two types of phantoms and a cadaveric breast. A specialized suite of algorithms was developed and utilized to construct images of reflectivity and sound speed from the phantom data. The basic results can be summarized as follows. (i) A fast, clinically relevant US tomography scanner can be built using existing technology. (ii) The spatial resolution, deduced from images of reflectivity, is 0.4 mm. The demonstrated 10 cm depth-of-field is superior to that of conventional ultrasound and the image contrast is improved through the reduction of speckle noise and overall lowering of the noise floor. (iii) Images of acoustic properties such as sound speed suggest that it is possible to measure variations in the sound speed of 5 m/s. An apparent correlation with x-ray attenuation suggests that the sound speed can be used to discriminate between various types of soft tissue. (iv) Ultrasound tomography has the potential to improve diagnostic imaging in relation to breast cancer detection. (c) 2005 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

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

4.6
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