Korean J Radiol.  2009 Dec;10(6):604-612. 10.3348/kjr.2009.10.6.604.

Usefulness of a Small-Field Digital Mammographic Imaging System Using Parabolic Polycapillary Optics as a Diagnostic Imaging Tool: a Preliminary Study

• Chon KS
• Park JG
• Son HH
• Kang SH
• Park SH
• Kim HW
• Kim HS
• Yoon KH

• KMID: 1102564
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2009.10.6.604

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy for spatial resolution and radiation dose of a small-field digital mammographic imaging system using parabolic polycapillary optics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a small-field digital mammographic imaging system composed of a CCD (charge coupled device) detector and an X-ray source coupled with parabolic polycapillary optics. The spatial resolution and radiation dose according to various filters were evaluated for a small-field digital mammographic imaging system. The images of a test standard phantom and breast cancer tissue sample were obtained. RESULTS: The small-field digital mammographic imaging system had spatial resolutions of 12 lp/mm with molybdenum and rhodium filters with a 25-micrometer thickness. With a thicker molybdenum filter (100 micrometer thick), the system had a higher spatial resolution of 11 lp/mm and contrast of 0.48. The radiation dose for a rhodium filter with a 25-micrometer thickness was 0.13 mGy within a 10-mm-diameter local field. A larger field image greater than 10 mm in diameter could be obtained by scanning an object. On the small-field mammographic imaging system, microcalcifications of breast cancer tissue were clearly observed. CONCLUSION: A small-field digital mammographic imaging system with parabolic polycapillary optics may be a useful diagnostic tool for providing high-resolution imaging with a low radiation dose for examination of local volumes of breast tissue.

Keyword

Digital mammography; Capillary optics; Spatial resolution; Radiation dose

MeSH Terms

Equipment Design
Humans
Mammography/*instrumentation
Molybdenum
Optics and Photonics/*instrumentation
Phantoms, Imaging
Radiographic Image Enhancement/*instrumentation
Rhodium

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Schematic layout (A) and experimental set-up (B) of small-field mammographic imaging system using parabolic polycapillary optics.

• 

  Fig. 2 Modulation transfer function data for small-field mammographic imaging system using parabolic polycapillary optics for three filters. Each data point presents average value of five measurements. Measurement errors are within ± 5%.

• 

  Fig. 3 Image taken with small-field mammographic imaging system using rhodium filter with 25-µm thickness for local part of line-pairs phantom. This system showed spatial resolution of 12 lp/mm.

• 

  Fig. 4 Radiation dose for molybdenum (Mo) and rhodium (Rh) filters with 25 µm thickness at fixed tube voltage (A) and current (B).

• 

  Fig. 5 Spectra for X-ray beam passing through parabolic polycapillary optics combined with X-ray tube and for direct X-ray beam without passing through optics (A) and X-ray reflectivity of glass parabolic polycapillary optics for various bounced X-rays at incidence angle of 1.7 mrad (B).

• 

  Fig. 6 X-ray spectra after passing through molybdenum (Mo) and rhodium (Rh) filters with 25 µm thickness.

• 

  Fig. 7 Images of 0.32-mm-Al2O3 specks in mammography phantom for small-field mammographic imaging system (A) and projection-type digital mammography (B).

• 

  Fig. 8 Mammographic images of breast cancer tissue with microcalcifications that proven by biopsy to be ductal carcinoma in situ. From comparing same objects shown one square and two circles in A and B, we find that small-field mammographic imaging system (A) shows better spatial resolution than projection-type digital mammography (B).

Reference

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2003. 2003. Atlanta:

2. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, Beex L, Bult P, Hendriks JH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001. 93:1095–1102.

3. Cady B, Steele GD Jr, Morrow M, Gardner B, Smith BL, Lee NC, et al. Evaluation of common breast problems: guidance for primary care providers. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998. 48:49–63.

4. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA. 2005. 293:1245–1256.

5. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005. 353:1773–1783.

6. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology. 2005. 234:353–362.

7. Abreu CC, Kruger DG, MacDonald CA, Mistretta CA, Peppler WW, Xiao QF. Measurements of capillary X-ray optics with potential for use in mammographic imaging. Med Phys. 1995. 22:1793–1801.

8. Bradford CD, Peppler WW, Ross RE. Multitapered X-ray capillary optics for mammography. Med Phys. 2002. 29:1097–1108.

9. Kruger DG, Abreu CC, Hendee EG, Kocharian A, Peppler WW, Mistretta CA, et al. Imaging characteristics of X-ray capillary optics in digital mammography. Med Phys. 1996. 23:187–196.

10. Kumakhov MA. Channeling of photons and new X-ray optics. Nucl Instrum Methods Phy Res B. 1990. 48:283–286.

11. MacDonald CA, Gibson WM. Applications and advances in polycapillary optics. X-Ray Spectrom. 2003. 32:258–268.

12. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 2001. 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

13. Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Spectral dependence of grandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology. 1991. 179:143–148.

14. Sobol WT, Wu X. Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables. Med Phys. 1997. 24:547–554.

15. American College of Radiology. Mammography Quality Control Manual. 1999. Washington DC: American College of Radiology.

16. Attwood D. Soft X-ray and extreme ultraviolet radiation: principle and applications. 2000. Cambridge University Press.