Observation of edge-enhancement in digital images obtained with a clinical mammography unit

M.E. Brandan1,2, M. Chevalier1, E. Guibelalde1, J.A. Rodrigo3 and T. Alieva4

Departamento de Radiologa, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain 2 Instituto de Fsica, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico 3 Imaging and Vision Department, Instituto de ptica, CSIC, Madrid, Spain 4 Departamento de ptica, Facultad de Ciencias Fsicas, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
1

Abstract X-ray field phase differences caused by an object can induce enhancement of the object edges in a radiological image, thus facilitating its visualization. We present numerical simulations and experimental data for the enhancement of weakly attenuating test object edges, imaged in-line, under magnification conditions, with a digital mammography unit (Mo/Mo anode/filter, 0.1 mm focal spot size, 25 kV, source-todetector distance equal to 0.66 m, 70 Pm pixel size). Images show increased illumination at the edges of TOR[MAM] phantom filaments and air bubble packaging film structures. The enhancement is about 1-3% over the background, thus requiring low noise conditions for visualization. Keywords Edge-enhancement; phase contrast; mammography.

I. INTRODUCTION X-ray images are two-dimensional attenuation projections of the object of interest. However, the irradiated medium modifies not only the intensity of the incident radiation field but also its phase, each of these effects directly related to the imaginary and real part of the complex index of refraction. The fast changes of the phase lead to the diffraction of the X-ray radiation which can be observed at a certain distance from the object. These dark and bright fringes enhance the edge presence, facilitating the visualization of details which could be invisible in a purely attenuation image. It is argued that phase contrast can supply additional information to a clinical image and improve its diagnostic value, particularly in cases where the contrast caused by attenuation is low [1]. Since the visualization of low-attenuation contrast and speculated masses are central to clinical mammography, the development of phase contrast techniques is of special interest for this medical application. At least two technical requirements hinder the visualization of phase contrast in radiological images. First, the radiation field must be sufficiently coherent (spatially) at the object plane in order to cause interference. Since X-ray tube anodes are extended incoherent sources of radiation, this

difficulty has been partially solved either using microfocus tubes, which illuminate from a relatively small focal spot typically smaller than 0.1 mm [2], or/and separating the object from the X-ray source. Both actions increase the lateral coherence length. Second, the interference fringes have a fine structure and their observation by a detector requires, either ideal spatial resolution, or a large distance between object and image receptor for the interference to be recorded by different pixels in the detector. Recent publications have reported the visualization of phase effects of interest for radiology. Synchrotrons provide the most advantageous conditions with relation to the two aforementioned difficulties [3] however, their setting in a laboratory environment does not facilitate their use as a practical clinical alternative. As for the use of X-ray tubes, Wilkins et al. [2] reported increased contrast in the image of thin objects obtained with a polychromatic microfocus tube (20 Pm focal spot), and Han et al. [4] have shown increased quality for images of small live samples obtained with partially coherent X-rays (using a conventional X-ray tube coupled to a polycapillary to restrict the source size to 30 Pm). In mammography, studies carried out in synchrotron facilities have reported strong enhancement of the contour of different tissues in breast samples [3,5]. For clinical mammography with X-rays tubes, a design study [6] reported a strong improvement of image quality due to edgeenhancement and discussed conditions for practical implementation. Phantom images of edges and fibres obtained with modified clinical mammography units (moving the detector some 60 cm away from the breast support plate) have revealed edge-enhancement which has been interpreted as caused by X-ray reflection and refraction [7,8], and clinical evaluation of these images by radiologists suggest a better lesion visibility [9]. A special unit for phasecontrast imaging has been developed as an instrument that can be brought to clinical use [10]. This work presents first results from a study aimed at evaluating and interpreting the observation of phase contrast in images obtained using current mammography equipment,

O. Dssel and W.C. Schlegel (Eds.): WC 2009, IFMBE Proceedings 25/II, pp. 331334, 2009. www.springerlink.com

332

M.E. Brandan et al.

under the experimental arrangement known as in-line or propagation contrast imaging [11]. II. METHODS A. Geometrical arrangement The in-line arrangement consists of a linear sequence of X-ray source, object of interest and image receptor. Radiation emitted from the source traverses the object of interest and its projected intensity is recorded by the image detector. In this study, the radiation source is a typical mammography X-ray tube with Mo/Mo anode/filter and 0.66 m source-todetector distance. An object can be located between source and image receptor. The detector is digital, with pixel size typical of those found in present mammography equipment (about 50-100 Pm) [12]. B. Diffraction model As a first-order description of the diffraction effects under study, an algorithm has been designed to analyze the basic parameters that determine phase contrast, among others, radiation energy and polychromaticity, focal spot size, relative distances between source, object and detector, detector resolution and alignment. The radiation complex field amplitude Eo(r) after the object is expressed as Eo(r)=Ei(r)T(r), where Ei(r) is the field amplitude before the object and T(r) is the object transmittance function
T (r ) 1 2S A(r ) exp(iM (r )) T0 exp  P (r, z )dz exp i , G (r, z)dz 2 O

tion is TFT-based, direct conversion by amorphous selenium, with 70 Pm pixel size. Analysis of for processing (raw) images was performed using ImageJ software. Test objects were an acrylic step phantom, filament groups B-F (0.35 to 0.20 mm dia) in a TOR[MAM] mammographic phantom, and a piece of air bubble packaging film. Test objects were located either directly on top of the compression base at 0.39 m from the source (magnification M=1.7), or on top of a second base over it, 0.34 m from the source (M=1.9). III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Model results Model calculations confirm previous observations and predictions [2,11] that phase-related effects in in-line arrangements are very much independent of the radiation wavelength (for energies between 15 and 22 keV). A fortunate practical consequence of this result is that polyenergetic X-rays from tubes may indeed induce a visible effect, in spite of the temporal incoherence associated with an extended energy spectrum. Once this result was obtained, the rest of simulations have assumed 20 keV X-rays. A uniform focal spot, with size typical for mammography, has been simulated by the (incoherent) superposition of intensities from point sources separated about 0.2 Pm. Results indicate the advantage of weak attenuation contrast in order to observe phase contrast. The interference amplitude at the border can be 2% greater than the illuminated background for an object phase difference of S and smaller for other values, as shown in Fig. 1. This model predicts that, for our geometrical arrangement and the object approximately located halfway between source and detector, the maximum

where P is the lineal attenuation coefficient, O is the wavelength and G=1-n, being n the real part of the index of refraction. A(r) and M(r) are real functions. Propagation from source-to-object and object-to-detector plane is described by the paraxial approximation via a Fresnel transform. Simulations have been made using MATLAB for a 2D (x,z) case, where x is a coordinate in the detection plane and z is the propagation direction. In this simple diffraction model, the test object is an edge which induces changes in amplitude, phase, or both. An extended radiation source is simulated by addition of point sources. C. Experimental method Digital images were obtained in a Selenia (Hologic) digital mammography unit under the following conditions: Mo anode, 0.030 mm Mo filter, 25 kV, 0.1 mm (small) focal spot size, no antiscatter grid, manual exposure between 40 and 100 mAs, and magnification platform always on. Detec-

Fig. 1. Calculated relative intensity at the detector, 20 keV X-rays, focal spot size = 0.1 mm, source-detector distance = 0.66 m, magnification 2, diffracted by edge at x = 0, transmission = 0.81, phase difference = 0, S/2 and S. Left corresponds to the illuminated side.

IFMBE Proceedings Vol. 25

Observation of Edge-Enhancement in Digital Images Obtained with a Clinical Mammography Unit

333

Pixel value

intensity increase is located within a narrow band outside the zone of geometrical blurring. As observed in Fig. 1, the width of the detector region (coordinates xd) where interference might be observed is of the order of 20 Pm, difficult, but not impossible, to achieve with current detectors [12]. This effect, to be detected, requires very low noise levels in the image. B. Experimental results

8000

7800

7600

7400

7200

Enhanced edges are visualized in many of the test objects. In the wedge phantom, the step corresponding to the minimum (15%) contrast shows a weak but consistent effect (1% increase in the bright side and a similar decrease in the dark side, not shown). All filaments in the TOR[MAM] phantom display bright fringes, as observed in Fig. 2 (top), which shows a C filament (0.30 mm diameter) and the bright enhancement of its borders. Fig. 2 (bottom) shows the pixel profile averaged over the total filament length (about 1 cm). The air bubble film image shows in many of the bubble edges a visible enhancement, as observed in the profile shown in Fig. 3.

7000 0 40 80 120 Pixel number (a.u.)

Fig. 3. Edge of an air bubble structure in the image of plastic package film, obtained with M=1.9. The data correspond to a single profile of a randomly chosen enhanced border. These results indicate that the chosen setup, arranged within the geometrical restrictions of a clinical mammography unit do permit phase effects to become visible. The magnitude of the effect is relatively weak, about 1-3% in the cases shown in Figs. 2 and 3, but probably noticeable in a clinical image. In this respect, Ref. [13] reported an increased phantom scoring during Quality Control tests in screen/film mammography using magnification geometry. Our simple model simulations have, apparently, predicted the correct magnitude for the effect. However, the calculated diffraction fringes appear within a detector plane distance of 20 Pm, narrower than the present pixel size. In principle, the pixel value should correspond to an average of the intensity over 70 Pm, less intense than the quoted maximum. The observations of a stronger effect indicate, probably, the influence of the object shape in the resulting enhancement and, possibly, the presence of reflection in the object surface. These questions must be properly addressed before concluding about the clinical relevance of these phantom object observations. IV. CONCLUSIONS We have observed edge enhancement in the images of weakly attenuating test objects using a geometrical arrangement which includes distances and focal spot of a current clinical mammography unit. Effects are relatively weak, fringes are about 1-3% brighter than the illuminated background, requiring low noise conditions to be visualized. Further investigations, both experiments and numerical simulations, are planned to better understand the origin of these effects, as well as to assess their clinical relevance.

3100

3050 Pixel value

3000

2950

2900 0 40 80 120 Pixel number (a.u.)

Fig. 2. Image of a C filament in the TOR[MAM] phantom, taken with magnification M=1.9. The top figure shows the filament image, and the bottom displays the profile obtained as an average over the total length.

IFMBE Proceedings Vol. 25

334

M.E. Brandan et al.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project has been partially funded by Grant UCMSantander Central Hispano PR 34/07-15914. Authors thank the kind collaboration of Dr. Cristina Nez de Villavicencio during mammography image acquisition. MEB acknowledges financial support from CONACYT-Mxico and DGAPA-UNAM during a sabbatical stay at Universidad Complutense.

8. 9.

10.

11.

REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Lewis R A (2004) Medical phase contrast x-ray imaging: current status and future prospects, Phys. Med. Biol. 49 3573-3583. Wilkins S W, Gureyev T E, Gao D, Pogany A and Stevenson A W, (1996) Phase-contrast imaging using polychromatic hard X-rays, Nature 384 335-338. Arfelli F, Bonvicini V, Bravin A et al. (2000) Mammography with Synchrotron Radiation: Phase-detection techniques, Radiology 215:286-293. Han S, Yu H, Cheng J, Gao C and Luo Z (2004) Contrast and resolution in direct Fresnel diffraction phase-contrast imaging with partially coherent x-ray source, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75 3146-3151. Fiedler S, Bravin A, Keyrilainen J, et al. (2004) Imaging lobular breast carcinoma: comparison of synchrotron radiation DEI-CT technique with clinical CT, mammography and histology, Phys. Med. Biol. 49 175-188. Kotre C J and Birch I P (1999) Phase contrast enhancement of x-ray mammography: a design study, Phys. Med. Biol. 44 2853-2866. Freedman M T, Lo S-C B, Honda C et al. (2003) Phase contrast digital mammography uning Mo X-ray: Clinical implications in detectability improvement, Proc. SPIE 5030, 533, DOI:10.1117/12. 480366

12. 13.

Ishisaka A, Ohara H and Honda C (2000), A new method of analyzing edge effect in phase contrast imaging with incoherent X-rays, Opt. Rev. 7 566-572. Morita T, Yamada M, Kano A et al. (2008) A comparison between film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography utilizing phase contrast technology in breast cancer screening programs, Proc IWDM 2008, pp. 48-54. Yamasaki A, Ichikawa K and Kodera Y (2008) Investigation of physical image characteristics and phenomenon of edge enhancement by phase contrast using equipment typical for mammography, Med. Phys. 35 5134-5150. Wu X and Liu H (2007) Clarification of aspects in in-line phasesensitive x-ray imaging, Med. Phys. 34 737-743. Monnin P, Gutierrez D, Bulling S et al. (2007) A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems, Med. Phys. 34 906914. Kotre C J, Birch I P and Robson K J (2002) Anomalous image quallity phantom scores in magnification mammography: evidence of phase contrast enhancement, Br. J. Radiol. 75 170-173. Address of the corresponding author: Author: Mara-Ester Brandan Institute: Instituto de Fsica, UNAM Street: Circuito de la Inv. Cientfica s/n Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacn 04510 DF City: Mexico City Country: Mexico Email: brandan@fisica.unam.mx

6. 7.

IFMBE Proceedings Vol. 25