This application is the national stage of international application no. PCT/GB00/00617, filed Feb. 21, 2000, which designates the United States and which claims priority from GB 9904692.2, filed Mar. 1, 1999.
The present invention relates to improvements in the processing of digitised x-ray images (particularly of the breast—termed mammograms or mammographic images), and more particularly to the enhancement of such images to assist clinicians in making accurate diagnoses based on them.
X-ray imaging is used as a basis for many medical techniques and, in particular, mammography continues to be the examination of choice for early detection of breast cancer in post-menopausal women and is the basis for national screening programmes.
Early detection of breast cancer greatly improves mortality rates, perhaps by as much as 25%. For this reason, mammographic examinations are nowadays performed on about 25 million women annually in the EC (of which, about 3 million are in the UK), at a cost of about 3 Bn US dollars per year. This huge cost and the poor accuracy in diagnosis (8-25% of cancers are missed and 70-80% of open surgical biopsies turn out to be benign), have led to increased interest in applying computer-aided techniques. Further, pressure for a reduction in the screening interval and for routine adoption of two-view screening (cranio-caudal and 45 degree medio-lateral) would entail a large increase in the number of mammograms to be analysed in the screening programme and this makes the development of reliable and robust computer techniques vital.
As an application of image processing, mammographic images pose a tough challenge because they have poor signal-to-noise ratio. This is largely because the images exhibit complex textures, and because there is a compromise between radiation dose and image quality. Worse, abnormalities appear as quite subtle, irregular, often non-local differences in intensity and the images are inevitably cluttered due to superimposition in the image of features separated in the breast. Further, the background varies greatly between different breasts, and there is relatively weak control of the imaging acquisition.
Unfortunately, while there have been proposals for the application of image processing to mammography, the vast majority have been of limited scope and incorporate only general non-mammography-specific image processing considerations. This involves great dangers. Image smoothing using such standard techniques may make lesions easier to locate, but can remove calcifications and spiculations which can be signs of cancer. Edge sharpening using standard techniques may appear to improve an image, but malignant lesions typically have fuzzy edges whereas benign ones tend to have sharp edges, so this edge sharpening process can actually transform an image of a malignant lesion into one that appears to a radiologist to be benign.
Calcifications present particular interest and problems. Localised cancers in the ducts or lobules of the breast are often are associated with secretions that thicken or become necrotic. These are called calcifications, or microcalcifications if they are smaller. Clusters of microcalcifications, which appear as small bright white objects in a mammogram, can be one of the earliest signs of breast cancer. Thus the identification of calcifications is a major goal of screening programmes, though benign calcifications are common (for example they often occur in blood vessels), and so the distinction between ductal and vascular microcalcifications needs to be made if the number of false positives is to be sufficiently low. This is not a problem for radiologists interpreting mammograms against the background of their knowledge of breast anatomy. It is, however, a challenge for image analysis programs. Further, dust and dirt entering the imaging system can create artifacts that mimic the appearance of microcalcifications and thus can be a cause of false positives both for radiologists and automated imaging systems.
Further problems are caused because the imaging process itself introduces a number of variables which affect the image and these will be explained below.
In the accompanying drawings
The intensity of radiation incident on the breast in such a system varies spatially for several reasons. The most significant is the “anode heel effect”. An x-ray tube produces x-rays by firing an electron beam at an anode. As the electron beam penetrates the anode the electrons are absorbed at varying depths and the x-ray photons that are produced have to travel through varying thicknesses of anode material before leaving the anode. This leads to varying attenuation of the emergent x-ray beam thus giving spatial variations in the incident x-ray spectrum, this is termed the anode heel effect and is quite substantial. Another source of spatial variation is due to the diverging nature of the beam. This means that the further away from the source the more spread out the x-ray beam is. However, this effect is small given that the distance from the source to the breast is large relative to the breast size. In visual assessment of mammograms the clinician mostly considers local variations in intensity, so the smooth change caused by the anode heel effect is not too troublesome. However, it does cause a problem for automated systems.
Two further effects of the image forming process which affect the image are scatter and extra-focal radiation. Considering scatter first, the x-ray radiation passes through the breast as shown in
The processes of intensification by the intensifying screen introduces blur or glare into the recorded image because the absorption of an x-ray photon at a point site 13A in the screen results in the approximately isotropic emission of light as shown in
Further, the relationship between the density of the image on the film and the energy imparted to the intensifying screen is not linear and changes with film processing conditions. Again, this may not affect visual assessment which is based on local variations, but would affect automated analysis, especially if the non linearity were not explicitly taken into account.
Finally, the process of digitizing the film introduces digitizer blur into the digital representation of the image.
It will be appreciated, therefore that the enhancement of x-ray mammograms and automated recognition and differentiation of features in mammograms is a very difficult problem.
It has been proposed that the conversion of a digitised mammogram into a particular representation, termed the hint representation, is capable of improving the enhancement and analysis of such mammograms. This was described in “A representation for mammographic image processing” by Ralph Highnam, Michael Brady and Basil Shepstone published in Medical Image Analysis; 1996, vol. 1, no. 1, pp 1-18 and, since the present invention is concerned with improvements to it, will be briefly explained below.
The intensity of a mammogram at a given pixel (x, y) indicates the amount of attenuation (absorption and scattering) of x-rays in the pencil of breast tissue vertically above (x, y) on the film.
Ideally, one might hope to be able to produce a quantitative three-dimensional representation of the breast with each voxel labelled with a tissue type, such as: glandular, fibrous, cancerous, fat, calcium. Given the x-ray attenuation within a voxel it is certainly possible to classify fat since it has relatively low linear attenuation coefficients. It is also possible to classify likely occurrence of calcium, which is practically radio-opaque. However, the remaining breast tissues are those that comprise anatomically significant events in breast disease, such as cysts, malignant masses, fibroadenomas, and they are difficult to resolve from x-ray attenuation measurements alone. In the hint representation these remaining tissues are classified as “interesting tissue”. Further, there is actually very little calcium so for practical purposes it can be ignored.
Unfortunately, a further problem arises because of the projective nature of mammographic imaging: the three-dimensional information is lost. In light of this, the only information that is available describes the tissue within a cone of the breast, where the cone has as its base the area of a pixel and as its apex the x-ray source. After appropriate correction the x-ray beam within this cone can be considered as a pencil beam. Thus in the hint representation (with calcium ignored) there are basically only two tissue classes of fat and interesting tissue to consider, and the thicknesses of the interesting tissue (hint cm) and fat (hfat cm) which together must necessarily add up to the total breast thickness H (i.e. H=hint+hfat) are used as quantitative breast measurements.
In practice hint is computed from a mammographic image using data related to system calibration and image calibration. The x-ray tube output spectrum is assumed to be relatively stable but the anode heel effect is corrected for. The mammographic imaging process has several parts which might vary from day to day. In order to effect meaningful image analysis by computer, it is necessary to know these variations in order to make the images conform to a standard. To achieve this requires calibration data. The film-screen response, film processor and film digitizer are calibrated by collecting the following data:
1. A step wedge film: A film is produced with a stepped wedge made of lucite placed along the back of the film and a lucite block placed over the automatic exposure control. This film allows us to calibrate the film-screen system and film-processing so that energy imparted to the intensifying screen can be related to film density.
2. A “blank” film: A film is taken with a short time of exposure with no object (breast) present. The exposure has to be short so that the film does not saturate. An exposure of 0.04 seconds, at 100 mA and 28 kV for example produces a film that has film densities that vary between 1.8 and 2.6 (despite looking black). This film provides information about the spatial variations of the incident radiation intensity.
3. The digitized image of step wedge film: The film density on each step of the wedge is measured so that once digitized, the relationship between pixel value in the digital image and film density in the corresponding area of the film is known.
As well as calibrating the system components, data specific to each mammographic examination is needed. In particular:
Most of this information is readily available but measuring the breast thickness H is currently awkward since the radiographer has to measure it using a ruler; though newer machines are incorporating automatic measurement of breast thickness.
Given a mammographic image, the thicknesses of interesting and fatty tissue between the x-ray source and each pixel can be found by considering the energy imparted to the intensifying screen at each pixel which is obtained from the pixel values in the image using the calibration data. Let Epse(x, y) be the energy imparted to the screen in the area corresponding to the pixel (x, y). Epse(x, y) contains both scatter and primary components. The primary component Ep(x, y) is determined by subtracting a scatter estimate from the total energy imparted as mentioned above.
Now for a pixel with hint cm of interesting tissue and hfat cm of fatty tissue above the corresponding area of the intensifying screen, the total attenuation at any energy E is expected to be:
where the substitution hfat(x, y)=H−hint(x, y) is made.
In this case, the energy expected to be imparted to the intensifying screen by the primary photons is:
where φ is the photon flux for an x-ray tube voltage of Vtube, this varies across the image due to the anode heel effect; Ap is the pixel area; ts is the time of exposure; N0rel(E) is the relative number of photons at energy E; S(E) is the absorption ratio of the screen to primary photons of energy E, G(E) is the transmission ratio of the grid for primary photons of energy E; μiuc(E) is the linear attenuation coefficient of the (typically) lucite (compression plate) at energy E; and hplate is the thickness of the compression plate, all of which are known from the calibration or image conditions.
Note that after substituting Equation (1) into Equation (2) the only unknown is hint(x, y). This can be found by equating the primary energy found in the practical case (i.e. measured from the image) with the theoretical value (i.e. the expected value calculated above) and solving the resulting nonlinear equation to determine hint(x, y).
This process of converting the image into the hint representation can be visualised as converting the original image so that the fat has risen to float on top of the interesting tissue surface, then the fat is peeled off leaving the representation hint(x, y). Informally, this representation can be viewed as a surface and clinically significant effects such as masses appear as features on this surface, eg. small hills, as seen for example in
The present invention is concerned with improvements in the calculation of the hint representation, which not only improve the accuracy of the hint representation but also provide some very useful results along the way.
A first aspect of the invention provides a method of correcting a digital representation of an x-ray image for degradation caused by a digitiser, the digital representation being a measurement of the image density for each of a plurality of pixels of the image, the measurement being obtained by illuminating the x-ray image, measuring the attenuation of the light by the x-ray image and calculating from the attenuated light values of the image density, the method comprising the steps of:
A second aspect of the invention provides, in a method of x-ray imaging using an intensifying screen to receive x-rays and emit light to be recorded on an x-ray film, a method of calculating from the x-ray image density the energy which was imparted to the intensifying screen, comprising the steps of:
A third aspect of the invention provides, in a method of x-ray imaging in which an intensifying screen is used to receive x-rays and emit light to be recorded on an x-ray film, the image recorded on the film is digitised to give a pixelised digital representation of the image density on the film, a method of enhancing the digital representation of the image to remove the contribution thereto of glare from the intensifying screen comprising the steps of:
A fourth aspect of the invention provides a method of calculating from a mammogram the compressed thickness of the imaged breast, comprising the step of delimiting in the mammogram the region corresponding to the part of the breast which is compressed from the region corresponding to the uncompressed breast edge by detecting the smoothness of curves of equal intensity in the mammogram.
The aspects above may be combined with other known steps to improve the production of an hint representation of the breast.
Another aspect of the invention provides a method of detecting microcalcifications in a breast from a mammogram of the breast, comprising the steps of processing the mammogram to produce an hint representation according to the above methods, converting the value of hint for a candidate region into a value representative of the volume of interesting tissue and thresholding the volume values to detect as microcalcifications areas of the mammogram where the volume value exceeds a threshold.
The invention also provides apparatus for carrying out the above methods. Further, the invention also provides a computer program, which can be provided on a computer-readable storage medium, for controlling a computer to carry-out the methods.
The present invention will be further described by way of example with reference to the accompanying drawings in which:
An embodiment of the invention will now be described by going through the steps necessary to calculate the hint representation. These can be summarized as follows:
Considering steps (1) and (2), mammographic images are digitised by illuminating the mammogram with light and measuring the amount of light transmitted through it. Various arrangements are used such as laser-scanning devices or devices which use a light box to illuminate the mammogram and a CCD camera to record the transmitted light. Digitisers are designed to record and output the pixel values related to the film (image) density rather than the transmitted light itself because the film density is independent of the illumination level.
Step (1) of the method above is relatively straightforward because modern high-quality laser scanning devices, for instance, have a known linear relationship between the film density and the pixel value:
P(x, y)=mD(x, y)+c,
A first aspect of the invention concerns step (2), the removal of digitizer blur. The modulation transfer function which show the degree of blur for various digitizers are known or can be measured. For instance, the modulation transfer functions for a scanning microdensitometer, CCD camera and a laser scanner are disclosed in “Digital Mammography - the comparative evaluation of film digitizers” by D. H. Davies, British J. Radiology, 66:930-933, 1993 and are shown in
Tl(x, y)=Il(x, y)×10-D(x,y)
where Il is the light illuminating the film in the digitizing process and Tl is the light emerging from the film. This transmitted light is calculated and the modulation transfer functions for the digitizer are applied to it to remove the digitizer blur. Then the transmitted light is reconverted into the film density (now without the digitizer blur) by dividing by Il and taking the log to base 10.
The next step, step (3) is to calculate from the deblurred film density D(x, y) the energy imparted to the intensifying screen Eimppse(x, y) by using film-screen calibration data. The film-screen response to energy imparted to the intensifying screen is given by a characteristic curve like that in
With the invention a serpentine characteristic curve is fitted to the lucite step wedge data, and this fitted relationship is used to calculate the imparted energy from the film density. In more detail, the serpentine curve can be expressed as:
x2y+a2y−b2x=0
rearranged this is:
This has the properties:
Thus a,b and also the origin to use need to be determined. The origin has to be the place of symmetry so there are four unknown parameters: a, b, xorigin, yorigin. The equation of the curve becomes:
Where x=log E (where E is the energy imparted to the intensifying screen) and y=D (where D is the film density). The origin is initially guessed to be in the centre of the film-density range and the film density range is measured so as to determine initial estimates of a,b. An optimizing routine is used to find the optimal values of the parameters based upon the step wedge and blank film calibration data collected from the mammography unit.
Inverting gives:
Having calculated the energy imparted to the screen, the next aspect of the invention concerns the removal from this energy value of the contribution to it by intensifier screen glare in step (4) which is directly related to light exposure to the film. In summary this is done using a point spread function calculated by assuming that the x-ray photons are absorbed equally across each part of the intensifying screen corresponding to one pixel and at different depths within the screen. Knowing the pixel size, the solid angles between each potential absorption site and the neighbouring pixels can be computed. These solid angles define the proportion of light photons that the neighboring pixels receive. The solid angles are weighted by distance from the absorption site to the pixel (representing light absorption by the screen) and by the actual x-ray energy reaching that site. Using these values glare can be estimated and removed from an image. The mathematics of this will now be explained in detail.
To derive the point-spread function, the screen is considered to be divided into layers and then each layer to be sub-divided into sub-pixel size units. Each of these units is considered to be a potential site of absorption of an x-ray. Let tp cm be the thickness of the intensifying screen. The screen is considered to be in n layers so that each layer has a thickness of dtp=tp/n cm. The layer is subdivided into pixels (whatever resolution is being used) and then each pixel is split into 100 smaller elements. It is assumed that the x-ray film lies directly on top of the intensifying screen separated only by a screen overcoat so that there is a gap of t0 cm between the x-ray film and the intensifying screen. For each layer a weighting mask wz(x, y) is computed (effectively the point spread function for that layer) which gives the percentage of light photons emitted at (xc, yc), depth z, that reach the film corresponding to the spatial position (x, y). The proportion of photons from (xc, yc) reaching (x, y) is related to the solid angle dθ from (xc, yc), depth z to (x, y). Symmetry round the azimuthal angle is assumed and the 1D case considered (see
Where b, c are found from simple geometry and x1 and x2 are the distances to either side of the target pixel (x, y) from the central pixel (xc, yc,).
Some of the light photons that are emitted from (xc, yc, z) are absorbed by the phosphor so that dθ is weighted using Beer's law and the relative glare becomes:
Where μphosphor light is an average linear attenuation value. Dividing the relative glare by the total relative glare gives a weighting mask for each layer. The x-ray energy being imparted to each layer is now incorporated. The energy into each layer is:
Ezimp(xc, yc)=Ein(xc, yc)e-μ
where Ezimp is the energy imparted and Ein is the incident energy. So the relative glare now becomes:
These values are combined for each layer and for each sub-pixel to get the full weighting mask w(x, y) and the results are scaled so that Σ(x,y)w(x, y)=1.0 and rotated around the central pixel to give a two dimensional mask.
The parameters μphosphorxray, μphosphor light are included in the model more for illustrative purposes than practical value since it turns out that they have little effect on the PSF, which is the crucial factor.
The two most important parameters in the model are the screen thickness tp and the gap between the film and the screen t0.
To properly compensate for glare it is necessary to know exactly where the edges of the mammographic film are since no glare comes from outside the film and those areas should be treated as zero in the convolution. Also, the energies imparted outside the breast area but on the film saturate the film so that to model the true effect of glare the energies on those regions have to be set to the expected incident energy as computed using the known time-of-exposure. The weighting mask w defines the point spread function for the intensifying screen so that the energy imparted image attained is simply the result of the energy imparted without glare convolved with w:
Eglare=Eno glare*w
This can be solved by deconvolution in the Fourier domain.
Although the glare has been removed to enhance the calculation of hint in steps (5) to (9) above, this step is itself important in that it allows the detection of microcalcifications and in particular allows a distinction to be made between microcalcifications and film-screen “shot” noise which can look confusingly similar to an image analysis system.
Film-screen “shot” noise can arise from dust and dirt on the intensifying screen or from deficiencies in the film. A major difficulty in detecting microcalcifications is that this noise tends to appear with similar characteristics to the calcification: small, low film density (bright) and high frequency. Consequently, automated detection of microcalcifications as localised bright spots tends to generate many false positives. Although some of these can be eliminated by using the clustering property of real microcalcifications it would be preferable to be able to eliminate them individually. The present invention uses the absence of blur from bright spots to mark them as noise. The absence of blur indicates they were introduced into the imaging chain after the glare from the intensifying screen.
In the above method of glare removal the mammogram is first transformed into an image which represents the energy imparted to the intensifying screen. In this representation calcifications and noise have very low values due to their apparent “high x-ray attenuation”. When glare is removed from the image, pixels with low energy values due to noise become negative indicating that the original energy value was not feasible.
Extensive testing of the film-screen shot noise detection algorithm has been carried out on real mammograms. On a set of 20 sections of mammograms many of which contained microcalcifications an experienced radiologist marked the points corresponding to film-screen shot noise. She marked 156 points of which the above algorithm detected 150. The algorithm also detected 6 more points which the radiologist was unable to state categorically whether they were noise or real microcalcifications. No definite microcalcifications were marked as noise.
Although this noise detection scheme works extremely well, there are two considerations which should be noted:
(i) At points where the film is saturated, that is where it has very high film density, or at very low film density such as in those areas beneath lead markers the estimated energy imparted is inaccurate and that can affect the noise detection. However, this happens only at the very edges of the breast image well away from any likely calcifications. An example of this is in
(ii) Noise points affect the noise detection at points near to them. The glare removal requires the energies in a local neighbourhood. If one of the energies is artificially low due to noise then the glare removal might be incorrect and might cause other noise not to be detected. This can be seen in
This method for detecting microcalcifications can be further improved. It may be recalled that the fundamental assumption underlying the generation of the hint representation is that the breast consists entirely of fat and “interesting tissue”. Since calcifications have an x-ray attenuation coefficient which is about 26 times higher than those tissue types, the attenuation of an x-ray beam through a microcalcification, perhaps of diameter 0.5 mm, is comparable to that through 1.3 mm of interesting tissue. For this reason, the hint value computed for pixels which in fact correspond to calcifications is expected to far exceed those which correspond to non-calcifications.
Based on this the improved method uses the “interesting tissue volume”, denoted by vint, which represents the total amount of interesting tissue present in a mass of breast tissue. vint can be computed from the hint values over the region of interest on the image. Now consider the vint value of a small volume of breast tissue, B, whose actual volume is vact. If no calcification is present in B, vint should be bound above by vact. However, if B is a calcification, the computed vint would exceed vact owing to the violation of the fundamental assumption of the hint model. Thresholding the vint to vact ratio, enables differentiation of calcifications from other breast tissue. This ratio is subject neither to varying imaging conditions nor to different tissue backgrounds on which a calcification is projected. This is contrary to image contrast, which is what most other calcification detection algorithms use.
Candidate regions of the mammogram can be segmented e.g. those that satisfy a weak contrast constraint and which are not too large. The calcification, of course, has other breast tissue above and below it which because of the projective nature of the mammogram contributes to the image. This contribution is removed by estimating the background hint (from the hint values surrounding the candidate region) and subtracting it. vint can then be calculated. The estimation of vact is more difficult, and to do this the heuristic assumption is made that the candidate microcalcification has an elliptical cross section, so that its volume can be estimated from its projection in the image.
In an initial experimental study a total of 20 image samples taken from 7 different mammograms were used. The images are digitised to a resolution of 50 μm per pixel. There are altogether 27 microcalcifications in the 20 samples, each of which has at least 1 microcalcification. A 100% true positive rate is obtained along with 0 false positives per image when the vratioint threshold is set to 3. The algorithm detects 4 other regions which the radiologists are unable to make conclusive remarks on whether they correspond to real calcifications or non-calcifications.
The results were also compared with those obtained by simply thresholding the grey level contrast. An ROC analysis shows that this method achieves both higher sensitivity and better specificity, albeit on a small sample.
Thus the glare removal process of the invention enables the elimination of many false positives that correspond to noise.
Algorithms based on contrast measures have difficulty rejecting such false positives. Thus despite the hint representation explicitly calcifications it is useful for detecting them and for differentiating false-positives due to shot noise.
Returning to improvements in the calculation of hint, the next step is to correct for the anode heel effect in step (5).
The primary component of incident energy at (x, y) is directly proportional to the number of photons incident to the volume of tissue projected onto that pixel:
Epimp(x, y)=φ(Vt, x, y)tsApEp
where the last term is used to denote that part of Equation 2 which is independent of the total number of photons (nd stands for not-dependent). It is assumed that the x-ray energy spectrum stays the same but that the total number of photons φ(Vt, x, y) changes with (x, y) due to the anode heel effect and diverging beam. The scatter component at the pixel (x, y), mostly comes from the x-ray photons that are entering the breast tissue in the surrounding neighbourhood. This neighbourhood is small enough to allow the anode heel effect over it to be ignored so that the scatter component is also directly proportional to the incident radiation at (x, y):
Esimp(x, y)=φ(Vt, x, y)tsApEs
The total energy imparted is the sum of the primary and scatter components so that using Equations 3 and 4 gives:
Eimp(x, y)=φ(Vt, x, y)tsAp(Ep
The incident photon flux is greatest underneath the anode, let the position on the film at this point be (xa, ya). The aim is to change Eimp(x, y) to be as if from that incident photon flux.
The ratio of the two photon fluxes needs to be computed. To determine the anode heel effect for a specific system and to thus compute the ratio an x-ray exposure is performed with no object present which gives an apparently “blank film”. For example, nine points on the film can be sampled. The energy imparted to the screen comes mostly from the primary radiation since there is no scattering material:
Noting that since the parts of the signal not dependent on the number of photons are equivalent (there is no object) gives:
Substituting this into Equation 6 allows compensation for the anode heel effect.
An important step in this method is the estimation of the compressed breast thickness H. This is needed for an accurate calculation of hint, but is also useful in checking the accumulated radiation dose per unit volume, and in locating the nipple which is important for diagnosis.
Many recent mammography systems have built-in analogue or digital thickness meters but their accuracy and precision are currently wanting. In clinical practice, most existing systems do not have such indicators.
This aspect of the invention provides a robust and accurate method for estimating the compressed breast thickness from a mammogram using image processing and modelling techniques above. The estimation is based upon the existence of the “breast edge”, a fatty area around each breast where the breast thickness steadily reduces to zero. Determining that area using image processing provides enough data to estimate the breast thickness when calibration data such as the tube voltage and exposure time are known. The technique can also be applied to mammograms taken previously.
During mammography, the breast is compressed between two supposedly parallel flat compression plates. The compression causes the breast to spread out, so that over most of the plate the breast is of equal thickness. However, towards the edge of the breast the breast bulges like a balloon and there is a not a straight vertical edge;
The breast tissue is enveloped in two layers of fibrous tissue, the deep layer overlying the muscle, and the very thin superficial layer beneath the skin. The superficial layer is separated from the skin by 0.5 to 2.5 cm of subcutaneous fat or areolar tissue. Joining the layers to the skin are fine fibrous ligaments (Cooper's ligaments). From this, it is reasonable to assume that what is termed here the breast edge consists entirely of fat, though in localized regions, particularly near the nipple and near the ligaments, this will not be strictly true.
This method of determining breast thickness H is based-upon delimiting the projected breast edge from the interior of the breast, i.e. to determine the arcs C and E in
There are two possible approaches to finding the curve which delimits the breast interior and then estimating the breast thickness. One is to find the smooth curve by using the original pixels values which are produced by the digitiser. The imaging process is then simulated using different breast thicknesses until the predicted pixel value matches that which is found on the smooth curve. The second approach is to take a rough initial estimate of the breast thickness and then to generate the hint representation. Analysis of the hint representation enables determination of how the estimate of the breast thickness should be changed. When the hint values are generated using an accurate breast thickness, it is found that within the projected breast edge there is so little attenuation that there cannot even be H cm of fat within that region. For these regions hint is set to zero and then it is determined what thickness of fat alone would give the observed attenuation.
The method of determining H is to start with an underestimate of the breast thickness and then to compute the hint representation. Those pixels that have hfat=H, hint=0 are marked and a measure of how rough the curve that those pixels represent is computed (see below). Initially, the hint values will be too high and there will be no pixels with hint=0. As H increases, more and more pixels are detected with hint=0 and these pixels will represent a smooth curve. This continues until the internal breast region is reached at which point the roughness measure rises dramatically to indicate a rougher curve.
Performing the computation this way rather than just using the pixel values in the original image and looking for iso-intensity curves allows more accuracy since H can be used to predict scattered and extra-focal radiation. It also enables checking that the algorithm is working properly. For example starting with many points that have hint>H then the value of H is far too low and should be increased it dramatically rather than in small steps. Another example is that if more that 20% of the breast is found as being within the projected breast edge, then H has increased too far.
As for the computation of roughness, as breast thickness increases a large jump in the measure is expected just after the correct value. In
There are several possibilities for such a roughness measure but the approach in the invention is to use an estimate of a fractal characteristic of the curve. A fractal curve has two parameters: fractal dimension and D-dimension, and for estimating image textures the latter is more reliable, stable and gives better discrimination. A technique to estimate the D-dimension: “the covering blanket” which is based upon morphological operations is used. To compute the measure, two further curves are created from the hint=0 curve: one from opening the hint=0 curve and one from closing it (see
Although the area between the curves is related to roughness, it is also directly related to the total length of the curve, so it is normalised and made dimensionless by dividing by the length of the curve. Taking all these considerations into account the roughness is the number of pixels enclosed by closing and opening of hint=0 divided by the number of pixels on the hint=0 curve. When this measure increases above a threshold of 1.3 increase of H is stopped.
In this estimate of breast thickness, the smooth curve which delimits the interior breast region is detected. The presence of Cooper's ligaments in the image, which is quite unusual, would affect only a section of the curve and only slightly the overall roughness measure. The increased density of tissue around the nipple just means that the curve is not a semi-circle but a more irregular shape that is still smooth. Indeed, the fact that the curve is less regular can be used to detect the position of the nipple.
There are several ways of forming an initial (under)estimate of breast thickness from the calibration data and image. One way exploits the fact that near the chest wall there is low scatter and the breast tends to be fatty so one can assume hint=0, hfat=H. From the energy imparted H can be estimated. Another way is to assume that near the breast edge there is pure fat and some nominal, high scatter-to-primary ratio. Another way is to estimate an initial value for the breast thickness using a film density that is known to be outside the breast and the calibration data; this always gives an underestimate of the actual breast thickness.
Bounds on the breast thickness can also be estimated to check that the method is not trying infeasible breast thicknesses. The lower bound on H is related to the minimum attenuation apparent within the breast image. To achieve such low attenuation requires a certain minimum thickness of breast tissue. The minimum possible H occurs if the breast tissue has very low fat content so that hint=H (i.e. highly attenuating). An upper bound on H can be determined in exactly the same way except using the maximum attenuation and considering the breast to be nearly all fat.
As indicated in the introduction, the scattered radiation can be estimated using a published technique, achieving step (7), and then the extra-focal radiation must be removed in step (8).
In this embodiment the extra-focal radiation is found by using the “inner projected breast edge” found in the estimation of H above.
The extra-focal radiation is assumed to be travelling in random directions much the same as light from the sun on a cloudy day and is arriving at a point on the intensifying screen from all directions equally. If the thickness and the composition of the breast along some curve C is known, the expected primary and scatter components along C can be estimated. The extra-focal component along C can be found by subtracting them from the known total energy imparted:
Eeimp=Epseimp−Esimp−Epimp
this value is then extrapolated over the entire image.
As mentioned above the curve C used is the “inner projected breast edge”. This is the breast tissue around the edge of the compressed breast which is fat and which is where the breast starts to curve,
The inner curve is used as curve C and the breast edge is modelled as consisting entirely of fat and being semi-circular. Using this assumption, the thickness of tissue between any point and where the extra-focal is perceived to be coming from can be computed and then this is used to adjust the extra-focal estimate accordingly.
The energy imparted to the screen due to extra-focal radiation can be assumed to be constant across the image if there were no breast present. With the breast present, the extra-focal radiation is attenuated by that quantity of breast tissue present along any particular path of travel.
That quantity of breast tissue is estimated using a model of the breast edge and the constant Eimpextra that would have been imparted had no breast been present is computed.
At each pixel (x, z), the energy imparted when a grid is used can be approximated by:
∀θ:0−π, ρ:0−2πEeimp(x, z, θ, ρ)=EextraimpT(θ, ρ),
where T is the transmission through the anti-scatter grid, and assuming that the screen absorbs all the photons reaching it, regardless of angle. To simplify the analysis a monoenergetic case with photon energy ε is treated. The total extra-focal radiation imparted to the intensifying screen at any point when no object is present is given by:
Let μh(x, z, θ, ρ) be the attenuation due to the breast along the path to point (x, z) from angles: θ, ρ:
μh(x, z, θ, ρ)=hint(x, z, θ, ρ)μint(ε)+hfat(x, z, θ, ρ)μfat(ε)
with ε the relevant photon energy. The energy imparted due to extra-focal radiation can be estimated using Beer's Law, ignoring scatter, for when the breast is present:
To study the problem analytically, this equation must be simplified. This is done by first assuming symmetry around the azimuthal angle ρ so that the problem becomes essentially one dimensional:
Eimpextra is estimated together with the attenuation along each ray using a suitable model of the breast and breast shape as explained below. The problem can be reduced further since π/2<θ<π represents the angles of extra-focal radiation coming from the chest wall where there is a full thickness of breast and body, so that contribution is assumed to be minimal. Furthermore, the most important part of the breast for extra-focal radiation is the breast edge and that can be considered to be just fat, so that the equation can be further simplified:
In this equation hfat(x, z, θ), i.e. the thickness of fat from any point along any direction, is computed as explained below. Using the coordinate system of
where a=H/2 and Z0 is the Z-coordinate relative to the edge of the inner breast edge, i.e. Z0=Z−Zedge.
and Zintersect is the intersection of the ray and the breast edge which occurs at:
where m=tan θ and c=Z0 tan θ. For the points which satisfy case A2, some of the extra-focal rays will come through tissue which is within the uniform breast thickness and some through the breast edge area. These rays are from θH to π/2 and the thickness of the breast is simply: hfat(θ)=H/sin θ. Outside the hint=0 line, there are angles that have a free line-of-sight to the pixel (x, z), see case B1 in
and thus:
So, that for 0<θ<θlimit; hfat(θ)=0. Case B2 in
The two Z coordinates are given by:
with m=tan θ, a=H/2 and c=−tan θZ0. And thus:
hfat(θ)=√{square root over ((Zintersect 1−Zintersect 2)2+(Yintersect 1−Yintersect 2)2)}{square root over ((Zintersect 1−Zintersect 2)2+(Yintersect 1−Yintersect 2)2)}
Using these thicknesses the basis extra-focal equation (7) can be rewritten as:
where θlimit is the angle of the tangent to the breast edge curve and for cases A1 and A2 is zero.
In order to finally compute the extra-focal radiation from equation (8) it is necessary to estimate the constant Eimpextra. The location of the projected breast edge is assumed and since the breast is assumed to be all fat the location of a curve which has hint=0 and hfat=H (the inner curve in
Let the curve with hint=0 and hfat=H be Chint=0. Since the location of that curve is known from the breast edge an estimate of the extra-focal component there is:
∀(x, z)εCh
The scatter estimate comes from step (7) of the method, Eimppse comes from the image and Eimpp comes from knowing that hint=0 and hfat=H. The average of Eimpe along the Chint=0 curve and Equation (8) with θlimit=0 to determine the constant:
Thus the extra-focal component and the percentage of the total radiation that is extra-focal can be computed.
Incorporating all the assumptions above in examples, the percentages computed indicate that extra-focal radiation is of the order of 6-10% of the total radiation. This is on the low side of the estimate made in other ways which state that extra-focal component can make up to 15% of the total radiation, but is thought to be reasonable.
The hint representation can now be found by applying steps (9) and (10) to produce hint surfaces such as that shown in
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
9904692.2 | Mar 1999 | GB | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/GB00/00617 | 2/21/2000 | WO | 00 | 10/11/2001 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO00/52641 | 9/8/2000 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4762343 | Hirohata | Aug 1988 | A |
4907288 | Shimoni | Mar 1990 | A |
5166969 | Heidsieck | Nov 1992 | A |
5553111 | Moore et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5574799 | Bankman et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5633951 | Moshfeghi | May 1997 | A |
5710841 | Green et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5757880 | Colomb | May 1998 | A |
5760403 | Elabd | Jun 1998 | A |
5960058 | Baba et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6611615 | Christensen | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6738499 | Doi et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6757423 | Amini | Jun 2004 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 196 044 | Oct 1988 | EP |
0 532 823 | Mar 1993 | EP |
0 788 070 | Aug 1997 | EP |