Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Evaluation of the impact of backscatter intensity variations on ultrasound attenuation estimation

2013; Wiley; Volume: 40; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1118/1.4816305

2473-4209

Eenas A. Omari, Tomy Varghese, Ernest L. Madsen, Gary R. Frank,

Photoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging

Medical PhysicsVolume 40, Issue 8 082904 Ultrasound physics Evaluation of the impact of backscatter intensity variations on ultrasound attenuation estimation Eenas A Omari, Eenas A Omari Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705 and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorTomy Varghese, Tomy Varghese Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705 and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705Search for more papers by this authorErnest L. Madsen, Ernest L. Madsen Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705Search for more papers by this authorGary Frank, Gary Frank Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705Search for more papers by this author Eenas A Omari, Eenas A Omari Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705 and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorTomy Varghese, Tomy Varghese Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705 and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705Search for more papers by this authorErnest L. Madsen, Ernest L. Madsen Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705Search for more papers by this authorGary Frank, Gary Frank Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705Search for more papers by this author First published: 30 July 2013 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4816305Citations: 9 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Purpose: Quantitative ultrasound based approaches such as attenuation slope estimation can be used to determine underlying tissue properties and eventually used as a supplemental diagnostic technique to B-mode imaging. The authors investigate the impact of backscatter intensity and frequency dependence variations on the attenuation slope estimation accuracy. Methods: The authors compare three frequency domain based attenuation slope estimation algorithms, namely, a spectral difference method, the reference phantom method, and two spectral shift methods: a hybrid method and centroid downshift method. Both the reference phantom and hybrid method use a tissue-mimicking phantom with well-defined acoustic properties to reduce system dependencies and diffraction effects. The normalized power spectral ratio obtained is then filtered by a Gaussian filter centered at the transmit center frequency in the hybrid method. A spectral shift method is then used to estimate the attenuation coefficient from the normalized and filtered spectrum. The centroid downshift method utilizes the shift in power spectrum toward lower frequencies with depth. Numerical phantoms that incorporate variations in the backscatter intensity from −3 to 3 dB, by varying the scatterer number density and variations in the scatterer diameters ranging from 10 to 100μm are simulated. Experimental tissue mimicking phantoms with three different scatterer diameter ranges (5–40, 75–90, and 125–150 μm) are also used to evaluate the accuracy of the estimation methods. Results: The reference phantom method provided accurate results when the acoustical properties of the reference and the sample are well matched. Underestimation occurs when the reference phantom possessed a higher sound speed than the sample, and overestimation occurs when the reference phantom had a lower sound speed than the sample. The centroid downshift method depends significantly on the bandwidth of the power spectrum, which in turn depends on the frequency dependence of the backscattering. The hybrid method was the least susceptible to changes in the sample's acoustic properties and provided the lowest standard deviation in the numerical simulations and experimental evaluations. Conclusions: No significant variations in the estimation accuracy of the attenuation coefficient were observed with an increase in the scatterer number density in the simulated numerical phantoms for the three methods. Changes in the scatterer diameters, which result in different frequency dependence of backscatter, do not significantly affect attenuation slope estimation with the reference phantom and hybrid approaches. The centroid method is sensitive to variations in the scatterer diameter due to the frequency shift introduced in the power spectrum. REFERENCES 1T. Lin, J. Ophir, and G. Potter, "Frequency-dependent ultrasonic differentiation of normal and diffusely diseased liver," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82(4), 1131–1138 (1987).10.1121/1.395303 2Z. F. Lu, J. A. Zagzebski, and F. T. Lee, "Ultrasound backscatter and attenuation in human liver with diffuse disease," Ultrasound Med. Biol. 25(7), 1047–1054 (1999).10.1016/S0301-5629(99)00055-1 3K. A. Wear, "A numerical method to predict the effects of frequency-dependent attenuation and dispersion con speed of sound estimates in cancellous bone," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109(3), 1213–1218 (2001).10.1121/1.1344161 4D. P. Hruska, J. Sanchez, and M. L. Oelze, "Improved diagnostics through quantitative ultrasound imaging. Conference proceedings," Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Conference (2009), pp. 1956–1959. 5K. Nam et al., "Ultrasonic attenuation and backscatter coefficient estimates of rodent-tumor-mimicking structures: Comparison of results among clinical scanners," Ultrason. Imaging 33(4), 233–250 (2011).10.1177/016173461103300403 6H. J. Huisman, J. M. Thijssen, D. J. T. Wagener, and G. J. E. Rosenbusch, "Quantitative ultrasonic analysis of liver metastases," Ultrasound Med. Biol. 24(1), 67–77 (1998).10.1016/S0301-5629(97)00211-1 7M. Bajaj, W. Koo, M. Hammami, and E. M. Hockman, "Effect of subcutaneous fat on quantitative bone ultrasound in chicken and neonates," Pediatr. Res. 68(1), 81–83 (2010).10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181df9c8c 8T. Wilson, Q. Chen, J. A. Zagzebski, T. Varghese, and L. VanMiddlesworth, "Initial clinical experience imaging scatterer size and strain in thyroid nodules," J. Ultrasound Med. 25(8), 1021–1029 (2006). 9M. Z. Kiss, T. Varghese, and M. A. Kliewer, "Ex vivo ultrasound attenuation coefficient for human cervical and uterine tissue from 5 to 10 MHz," Ultrasonics 51(4), 467–471 (2011).10.1016/j.ultras.2010.11.012 10B. L. McFarlin, W. D. O'Brien, M. L. Oelze, J. F. Zachary, and R. C. White-Traut, "Quantitative ultrasound assessment of the rat cervix," J. Ultrasound Med. 25(8), 1031–1040 (2006). 11T. A. Bigelow, B. L. McFarlin, W. D. O'Brien Jr., and M. L. Oelze, "In vivo ultrasonic attenuation slope estimates for detecting cervical ripening in rats: Preliminary results," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123(3), 1794–1800 (2008).10.1121/1.2832317 12Y. Labyed, T. A. Bigelow, and B. L. McFarlin, "Estimate of the attenuation coefficient using a clinical array transducer for the detection of cervical ripening in human pregnancy," Ultrasonics 51(1), 34–39 (2011).10.1016/j.ultras.2010.05.005 13B. L. McFarlin, T. A. Bigelow, Y. Laybed, W. D. O'Brien, M. L. Oelze, and J. S. Abramowicz, "Ultrasonic attenuation estimation of the pregnant cervix: A preliminary report," Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 36(2), 218–225 (2010).10.1002/uog.7643 14N. F. Maklad, J. Ophir, and V. Balsara, "Attenuation of ultrasound in normal liver and diffuse liver-disease invivo," Ultrason. Imaging 6(2), 117–125 (1984).10.1177/016173468400600201 15K. J. Parker, M. S. Asztely, R. M. Lerner, E. A. Schenk, and R. C. Waag, "Invivo measurements of ultrasound attenuation in normal or diseased liver," Ultrasound Med. Biol. 14(2), 127–136 (1988).10.1016/0301-5629(88)90180-9 16A. Duerinckx et al., "Invivo acoustic attenuation in liver - Correlations with blood-tests and histology," Ultrasound Med. Biol. 14(5), 405–413 (1988).10.1016/0301-5629(88)90076-2 17B. W. Dong, M. Wang, K. Xie, and M. H. Chen, "In-vivo measurements of frequency-dependent attenuation in tumors of the liver," J. Clin. Ultrasound 22(3), 167–174 (1994).10.1002/jcu.1870220304 18F. T. Dastous and F. S. Foster, "Frequency-dependence of ultrasound attenuation and backscatter in breast-tissue," Ultrasound Med. Biol. 12(10), 795–808 (1986).10.1016/0301-5629(86)90077-3 19M. Kubota, Y. Yamashita, M. Iga, T. Tajima, and T. Mitomi, "Invivo estimation and imaging of attenuaion coefficients and instantaneous frequency for breast-tissue characterization," Ultrasound Med. Biol. 14, 163–174 (1988).10.1016/0301-5629(88)90059-2 20P. He and J. F. Greenleaf, "Attenuation estimation on phantoms - A stability test," Ultrason. Imaging 8(1), 1–10 (1986).10.1016/0161-7346(86)90019-2 21H. S. Jang, T. K. Song, and S. B. Park, "Ultrasound attenuation estimation in soft tissue using the entropy difference of pulsed echoes between two adjacent envelope segments," Acoust. Imaging 17, 517–531 (1989).10.1007/978-1-4613-0791-4_55 22B. S. Knipp, J. A. Zagzebski, T. A. Wilson, F. Dong, and E. L. Madsen, "Attenuation and backscatter estimation using video signal analysis applied to B-mode images," Ultrason. Imaging 19(3), 221–233 (1997).10.1177/016173469701900305 23L. X. Yao, J. A. Zagzebski, and E. L. Madsen, "Backscatter coefficient measurements using a reference phantom to extract depth-dependent instrumentation factors," Ultrason. Imaging 12(1), 58–70 (1990).10.1016/0161-7346(90)90221-I 24R. Kuc, "Estimating acoustic attenuation from reflected ultrasound signals- Comparison of spectral-shift and spectral-difference approaches," IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process 32(1), 1–6 (1984).10.1109/TASSP.1984.1164282 25J. Ophir, R. E. McWhirt, N. F. Maklad, and P. N. Jaeger, "A narrowband pulse-echo technique for in vivo ultrasonic attenuation estimation," IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. BME-32(3), 205–212 (1985).10.1109/TBME.1985.325530 26B. Zhao, O. A. Basir, and G. S. Mittal, "Estimation of ultrasound attenuation and dispersion using short time Fourier transform," Ultrasonics 43(5), 375–381 (2005).10.1016/j.ultras.2004.08.001 27H. Kim and T. Varghese, "Hybrid spectral domain method for attenuation slope estimation," Ultrasound Med. Biol. 34(11), 1808–1819 (2008).10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.04.011 28Y. Labyed and T. A. Bigelow, "A theoretical comparison of attenuation measurement techniques from backscattered ultrasound echoes," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(4), 2316–2324 (2011).10.1121/1.3559677 29E. Omari, H. Lee, and T. Varghese, "Theoretical and phantom based investigation of the impact of sound speed and backscatter variations on attenuation slope estimation," Ultrasonics 51(6), 758–767 (2011).10.1016/j.ultras.2011.03.004 30L. Yadong and J. A. Zagzebski, "A frequency domain model for generating B-mode images with array transducers," IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 46(3), 690–699 (1999).10.1109/58.764855 31Q. Chen, Computer Simulations in Parametric Ultrasonic Imaging (University of Madison-Wisconsin, Madison, 2004). 32 Physical Properties of Medical Ultrasound, edited by C. Hill, J. Bamber, and Haar Gt (Halsted Press, New York, 1986). 33J. J. Faran Jr., "Sound scattering by solid cylinders and spheres," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 23, 405–417 (1951).10.1121/1.1906780 34E. L. Madsen et al., "Interlaboratory comparison of ultrasonic-attenuation and speed measurements," J. Ultrasound Med. 5(10), 569–576 (1986). 35E. L. Madsen et al., "Interlaboratory comparison of ultrasonic backscatter, attenuation, and speed measurements," J. Ultrasound Med. 18(9), 615–631 (1999). 36M. Fink, F. Hottier, and J. F. Cardoso, "Ultrasonic signal-processing for invivo attenuation measurement -short-time fourier-analysis," Ultrason. Imaging 5(2), 117–135 (1983).10.1016/0161-7346(83)90014-7 37H. Kim and T. Varghese, "Attenuation estimation using spectral cross-correlation," IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 54(3), 510–519 (2007).10.1109/TUFFC.2007.274 38D. Welch, "The use of fast fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms," IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 15(2), 70–73 (1967).10.1109/TAU.1967.1161901 Citing Literature Volume40, Issue8August 2013082904 ReferencesRelatedInformation