Quantitative evaluation of fibroglandular tissue for estimation of tissue-differentiated absorbed

181 Pages·2017·14.75 MB·English

by  Nausikaa Geeraert

Quantitative evaluation of fibroglandular tissue for
estimation of tissue-differentiated absorbed energy in
breast tomosynthesis
Nausikaa Geeraert
To cite this version:
Nausikaa Geeraert. Quantitative evaluation of fibroglandular tissue for estimation of tissue-
differentiated absorbed energy in breast tomosynthesis. Signal and Image processing. Télécom
ParisTech; Katholieke universiteit te Leuven (1970-..), 2014. English. ￿NNT: 2014ENST0060￿. ￿tel-
01397370￿
HAL Id: tel-01397370
https://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01397370
Submitted on 15 Nov 2016
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
2014-ENST-0060
EDITE-ED130
Doctorat ParisTech
T H E S E
pourobtenirlegradededocteurdélivrépar
TELECOM ParisTech
Spécialité «Traitement du Signal et de l’Image»
présentéeetsoutenuepubliquementpar
Nausikaä GEERAERT
le6octobre2014
Quantitative evaluation of fibroglandular tissue for estimation of
tissue-differentiated absorbed energy in breast tomosynthesis
Jury
Mme.IsabelleBLOCH,Prof.,TSI,TélécomParisTech Directricedethèse
Mme.HildeBOSMANS,Prof.,ImagingandPathology,KULeuven Directricedethèse
M.RémyKLAUSZ,Ir.,GEHealthcare Encadrantindustriel (cid:1)
M.MichelBOURGUIGNON,Prof.,UniversitédeVersaillesSaint-QuentinenYvelines Rapporteur
M.NathalSEVERIJNS,Prof.,IKS,KULeuven Rapporteur (cid:2)
M.FrancisVERDUN,Prof.,Institutderadiophysique-CHUVetUniversitédeLausanne Examinateur
(cid:3)
M.MadanREHANI,Prof.,HarvardMed.School&Mass.Gen.Hosp.,Boston,
SecretaryICRPProt.inMedicine Examinateur
(cid:4)
Mme.ChantalVANONGEVAL,Prof.,Radiology,KULeuven Examinateur
(cid:5)
TELECOMParisTech
écoledel’InstitutMines-Télécom-membredeParisTech
46rueBarrault75013Paris-([phone]-www.telecom-paristech.fr
2
KU Leuven
Biomedical Sciences Group
Faculty of Medical Sciences
Department of Radiology
QUANTITATIVEEVALUATIONOFFIBROGLANDULARTISSUEFOR
ESTIMATION OF TISSUE-DIFFERENTIATED ABSORBED ENERGY IN
BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS
Nausikaa¨ GEERAERT
Jury
Promoters: Isabelle Bloch Dissertation presented
Hilde Bosmans in partial fulfilment
Industrial promoter: R´emy Klausz of the requirements for
Chair: Nathal Severijns the degree of Doctor in
Jury members: Michel Bourguignon Biomedical Sciences
Madan Rehani
Chantal Van Ongeval
Francis Verdun
Defense October 6, 2014
4
Acknowledgment
PhD stands for Philosophiae Doctor, an expert in the understanding of things (philosophy
here means wisdom), or someone who reasons. Besides the technical knowledge in this
text we thus also tried to give a vision for further research and innovation beyond this
project. However reasoning also means realising that great things are achieved while
working together. Therefore a considerable number of people should be acknowledged for
the success of this work.
The main actors are professor Isabelle Bloch, professor Hilde Bosmans and R´emy Klausz,
forming a great team of promotors for daily support during the last three years. They
provided a good balance between support and encouragements on the one hand, and
demanding high(er) quality on the other hand. Supervising someone from a distance is, as
I found out when supervising an intern, not an easy task. Isabelle, Hilde and R´emy, you
did this successfully, even if you had your own specific motivations. Therefore I express
my greatest respect and a sincere thank you for all what you did.
I also would like to thank Serge Muller for making this CIFRE project possible and for
welcoming me in his research team.
Thank you to professor Bourguignon, professor Rehani, professor Severijns, professor
Van Ongeval and professor Verdun, who accepted to be member of the jury of this thesis
and who applied their expertise to read and comment the manuscript. Your critical and
valuable inputs helped me to improve this manuscript in a considerable way. Thank you
for your interest in our work and your encouraging conclusions.
People providing me technical support and material helped me a lot: the assistents
in Buc, Leuven and Paris, planning my trips and preparing documents for the studies, the
partnering hospitals, the physicists in Jolimont, the mammography team in UZ Leuven
and the GE CT service team, who provided me with data, images and access to the
equipment, my colleagues in Buc, Leuven and Paris, helping me when a program wasn’t
installed or working as expected, ...
I was very welcome in the teams at the different institutions: in GE (BCare, IQ and in
general engineering), in T´el´ecom Paristech (TII and the medical imaging group), and
at UZ-KU Leuven (the QA and research group for medical physics). The continuous
traveling between the different places did not facilitate integration, but with the help
of my colleagues it all went well. Humanly speaking, I also learned a lot during extra-
professional activities: team buildings, conferences, running and swimming together, the
yearly GE football cup, extended lunches, ... You allowed me in a nice way to learn more
i
ii
about the world and the lives of real people with different backgrounds, habits and cultures.
Finally I want to thank my family and friends: mama, papa, Mario, Naomi, Jorinde, Arvid,
grootva, grootmoe, oma, ... for the great life I had until now, Naomi, Geraud, Jorinde and
Jeroen for hosting me when I was traveling to Leuven, and mama, Mario and Naomi for
reading my texts and discussing my work.
A list of names of people I met during my PhD adventure in Paris or a list of events would
never be complete, so I just say:
Thank you all for entering in and
contributing to my life and this work.
Nausika¨a GEERAERT
October 6, 2014
Contents
List of abbreviations vii
Abstract ix
R´esum´e xi
Pr´esentation du projet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Densit´e volumique du sein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Etat de l’art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Nos contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Energie d´epos´ee dans la glande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii
Etat de l’art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii
Nos contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii
Samenvatting xxv
Probleemstelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv
Volumetrische borstdensiteit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvi
State of the art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvi
Onze bijdragen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxix
Energie geabsorbeerd door het klierweefsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxii
State of the art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxii
Onze bijdragen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiii
Conclusie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxvii
1 Introduction 5
1.1 General problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 State of the art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1 Breast anatomy and histology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.2 Breast density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.3 Breast dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3 Research objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
I BREAST DENSITY 19
2 Validation of breast equivalent phantom material 23
iii
iv CONTENTS
2.1 Breast equivalent material for VBD computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 CT measurements of the breast equivalent phantom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.1 CIRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.2 Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.3 Measuring the CIRS characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3 Breast equivalent phantom characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4 Breast equivalent phantom in mammography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3 Breast density computation 33
3.1 Volumetric breast density: introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2 VBD: from theory to practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.1 Theoretical model for the computation of VBD from digital
MX
mammographic images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.2 Implementation of the VBD computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2.3 Application to mammographic images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3 Calibration of the VBD computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.1 VBD for phantoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.2 VBD for the database of mammographic images . . . . . . . . . 49
MX
3.4 Conclusion: VBD computation is possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4 New validation of the breast density computation 57
4.1 CT versus mammography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2 VBD computation in CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.1 Theoretical derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.2 Database of mammographic and CT images . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3 VBD versus VBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
CT MX
4.3.1 Calibration of the CT method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3.2 VBD for the databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
CT
4.3.3 Correlation between VBD and VBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
CT MX
4.4 Same breast, same VBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Discussion Part I 65
II BREAST DOSIMETRY 67
5 Validation of the Monte-Carlo simulation tool CatDose 71
5.1 Monte-Carlo simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.2 TG 195 AAPM manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.3 Computation of dose conversion factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.3.1 Dance conversion factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.3.2 Boone conversion factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.4 Limits and strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
CONTENTS v
6 Evaluation of irradiation in mammography 79
6.1 Dosimetry for individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.2 Use the right density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.3 New quantity used for individualized risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.4 Computation of the local GIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.5 Discussion and conclusion on individual risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 89
7 Segmentation of glandular tissue from tomosynthesis 93
7.1 Brief introduction to tomosynthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.2 Tomosynthesis limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.3 Segmentation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.4 Reconstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.5 Textured phantom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.6 Real patient cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.7 Conclusion on tomosynthesis segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Discussion Part II 111
8 General conclusions and perspectives 113
APPENDIX 114
A Breast statistics 115
B Level estimators 119
List of publications 121
Bibliography 122