Dr. Ferdinand Lück Profile

Dr. Ferdinand Lück

at Siemens Healthineers

SPIE Involvement:

Author

Publications (3)

Proceedings Article | 1 April 2024 Poster + Paper

Investigation of correction and decomposition algorithms in bedside x-ray imaging simulating a multi-layer flat panel detector

Jamin Schaefer, Stephen Liu, Steffen Kappler, Ferdinand Lueck, Ludwig Ritschl, Thomas Weber, Wojciech Zbijewski, Georg Rose

Proceedings Volume 12925, 1292536 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3006758

KEYWORDS: Bone, Monte Carlo methods, Adipose tissue, Sensors, Detection and tracking algorithms, Computer simulations, Attenuation, X-ray imaging, Computed tomography, X-rays

Read Abstract +

Proceedings Article | 1 April 2024 Presentation + Paper

Hybrid thick-slice reconstruction in wide-angle DBT for optimal micro-calcification and mass perceptibility

Marcel Beister, Ferdinand Lueck, Ludwig Ritschl, Steffen Kappler

Proceedings Volume 12925, 129250O (2024) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3006969

KEYWORDS: Digital breast tomosynthesis, Visibility, Reconstruction algorithms, Diagnostics, Tunable filters, Data acquisition, Voxels, Tissues, Blood vessels, Anatomy

Read Abstract +

Proceedings Article | 13 July 2022 Paper

Optimized signal of calcifications in wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis systems: a virtual clinical study

Liesbeth Vancoillie, Lesley Cockmartin, Ferdinand Lueck, Nicholas Marshall, Ralf Nanke, Steffen Kappler, Hilde Bosmans

Proceedings Volume 12286, 1228604 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2625772

KEYWORDS: Digital breast tomosynthesis, Breast, Reconstruction algorithms, Computer simulations, Clinical trials, X-rays, Visibility, Virtual reality

Read Abstract +

PURPOSE: To investigate differences in microcalcification detection performance for different acquisition setups in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), a convex dose distribution and sparser number of projections compared to the standard set-up was evaluated via a virtual clinical trial (VCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Following the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and patient consent, mediolateral oblique (MLO) DBT views were acquired at twice the automatic exposure controlled (AEC) dose level; omitting the craniocaudal (CC) view limited the total examination dose. Microcalcification clusters were simulated into the DBT projections and noise was added to simulate lower dose levels. Three set-ups were evaluated: (1) 25 DBT projections acquired with a fixed dose/projection at the clinically used AEC dose level, (2) 25 DBT projections with dose/projection following a convex dose distribution along the scan arc, and (3) 13 DBT projections at higher dose with the total scan dose equal to the AEC dose level and preserving the angular range of 50° (sparse). For the convex set-up, dose/projection started at 0.035 mGy at the extremes and increased to 0.163 mGy for the central projection. A Siemens prototype algorithm was used for reconstruction. An alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (AFROC) study was conducted with 6 readers to compare the microcalcification detection between the acquisition set-ups. Sixty cropped VOIs of 50x50x(breast thickness) mm3 per set-up were included, of which 50% contained a microcalcification cluster. In addition to localization of the cluster, the readers were asked to count the individual calcifications. The area under the AFROC curve was used to compare the different acquisition set-ups and a paired t-test was used to test significance. RESULTS: The AUCs for the standard, convex and sparse set-up were 0.97±0.01, 0.95±0.02 and 0.89±0.03, respectively, indicating no significant difference between standard and convex set-up (p=0.309), but a significant decrease in detectability was found for the sparse set-up (p=0.001). The number of detected calcifications per cluster was not significantly different between standard and convex set-ups (p=0.049), with 42%±9% and 40%±8%, respectively. The sparse set-up scored lower with a relative number of detected microcalcifications of 34%±11%, but this decrease was not significant (p=0.031). CONCLUSION: A convex dose distribution that increased dose along the scan arc towards the central projections did not increase detectability of microcalcifications in the DBT planes compared to the current AEC set-up. Conversely, a sparse set of projections acquired over the total scan arc decreased microcalcification detectability compared to the variable dose and current clinical set-up.

View contact details

UPDATE YOUR PROFILE

Is this your profile? Update it now.

Sign into your SPIE.org account

Don’t have a profile and want one?

Create an account on SPIE.org

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years