A Comparison of Reconstruction Algorithms Regarding Exposure Dose Reductions during Digital Breast Tomosynthesis


This study compared reconstruction algorithms [filtered back projection (FBP) and simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT)] with respect to radiation doses and image quality and suggested the possibility of decreasing the exposure dose in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). These two existing algorithms were implemented using a DBT system and experimentally evaluated using contrast-detail (CD) phantom measurements, such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), root mean square error (RMSE), intensity profile, and artifact spread function (ASF), and the results obtained with FBP and SIRT were compared. The potential dose reduction, contrast improvement, quantum noise reduction, and artifact reduction in DBT were evaluated using different exposures and the two reconstruction techniques. The effectiveness of each technique for enhancing the visibility of a CD phantom was quantified with respect to CNR and RMSE, and artifact reduction was quantified with respect to the intensity profile and ASF. SIRT produced reconstructed images with CNR values indicative of high-contrast detection. Image error was smaller in the in-focus plane SIRT images, and artifacts were decreased in these images according to the determined intensity profiles and ASF. These results suggest that when using SIRT, the exposure dose could possibly be decreased to half.

Share and Cite:

Gomi, T. (2014) A Comparison of Reconstruction Algorithms Regarding Exposure Dose Reductions during Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 7, 516-525. doi: 10.4236/jbise.2014.78053.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Sone, S., Kasuga, T., Sakai, F., Kawai, T., Oguchi, K., Hirano, H., Li, F., Kubo, K., Honda, T., Hniuda, M., Takemura, K. and Hosoba, M. (1995) Image Processing in the Digital Tomosynthesis for Pulmonary Imaging. European Radiology, 5, 96-101.
[2] Skaane, P., Bandos, A.I., Gullien, R., Eben, E.B., Ekseth, U., Haakenaasen, U., Izadi, M., Jebsen, I.N., Jahr, G., Krager, M., Niklason, L.T., Hofvind, S. and Gur, D. (2013) Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-Based Screening Program. Radiology, 267, 47-56.
[3] Niklason, L.T., Christian, B.T., Niklason, L.E., Kopans, D.B., Castleberry, D.E., Opsahl-Ong, B.H., Landberg, C.E., Slanetz, P.J., Giardino, A.A., Moore, R., Albagli, D., DeJule, M.C., Fitzgerald, P.F., Fobare, D.F., Giambattista, B.W., Kwasnick, R.F., Liu, J., Lubowski, S.J., Possin, G.E., Richotte, J.F., Wei, C.Y. and Wirth, R.F. (1997) Digital Tomo-synthesis in Breast Imaging. Radiology, 205, 399-406.
[4] Wu, T., Stewart, A., Stanton, M., McCauley, T., Phillips, W., Kopans, D.B., Moore, R.H., Eberhard, J.W., Opsahl-Ong, B., Niklason, L. and Williams, M.B. (2003) Tomographic Mammography Using a Limited Number of Low-Dose Cone-Beam Projection Images. Medical Physics, 30, 365-380.
[5] Rafferty, E.A., Park, J.M., Philpotts, L.E., Poplack, S.P., Sumkin, J.H., Halpern, E.F. and Niklason, L.T. (2013) Assessing Radiologist Performance Using Combined Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Compared with Digital Mammography Alone: Results of a Multicenter, Multireader Trial. Radiology, 266, 104-113.
[6] Helvie, M.A., Roubidoux, M.A., Zhang, Y., Carson, P.L. and Chan, H.P. (2006) Tomosynthesis Mammography vs Conventional Mammography: Lesion Detection and Reader Reference. Initial Experience. RSNA Program Book, 335.
[7] Sechopoulos, I., Bliznakova, K. and Fei, B. (2013) Power Spectrum Analysis of the X-Ray Scatter Signal in Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Projections. Medical Physics, 40, 101905-1-101905-7.
[8] Gur, D., Zuley, M.L., Anello, M.I., Rathfon, G.Y., Chough, D.M., Ganott, M.A., Hakim, C.M., Wallace, L., Lu, A. and Bandos, A.I. (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening Using Synthetically Reconstruction Projection Images: An Observer Performance Study. Academic Radiology, 19, 166-171.
[9] Dobbins 3rd, J.T. and Godfrey, D.J. (2003) Digital x-Ray Tomosynthesis: Current State of the Art and Clinical Potential. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 48, R65-R106.
[10] Bleuet, P., Guillemaud, R., Magnin, I. and Desbat, L. (2001) An Adapted Fan Volume Sampling Scheme for 3D Algebraic Reconstruction in Linear Tomosynthesis. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 3, 1720-1724.
[11] Wu, T., Zhang, J., Moore, R., Rafferty, E. and Kopans, D. (2004) Digital Tomosynthesis Mammography Using a Parallel Maximum-Likelihood Reconstruction Method. Proceedings of SPIE, 5368, 1-11.
[12] Marin, D., Nelson, R.C., Schindera, S.T., Richard, S., Youngblood, R.S. and Yoshizumi, T.T. (2010) Low-Tube- Voltage, High-Tube-Current Multidetector Abdominal CT: Improved Image Quality and Decreased Radiation Dose with Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm-Initial Clinical Experience. Radiology, 254, 145-153.
[13] Gordon, R., Bender, R. and Hermen, G.T. (1970) Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques (ART) for Three-Dimensional Electron Microscopy and X-Ray Photography. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 29, 471-481.
[14] Mathworks Inc. (2014)
[15] Dance, D.R., Young, K.C. and van Engen, R.E. (2011) Estimation of Mean Glandular Dose for Breast Tomosynthesis: Factors for Use with the UK, European and IAEA Breast Dosimetry Protocols. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 56, 453-471.
[16] Welvaert, M. and Rosseel, Y. (2013) On the Definition of Signal-To-Noise Ratio and Contrast-To-Noise Ratio for FMRI Data. PLoS One, 8, Article ID: e77089.
[17] Wu, T., Stewart, A., Stanton, M., McCauley, T., Phillips, W. and Kopans, D.B. (2003) Tomographic Mammography Using a Limited Number of Low-Dose Cone-Beam Projection Images. Medical Physics, 30, 365-380.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.