Comparison of four attenuation-compensation methods for backscatter coefficient estimation and characterization of focal liver lesions

OBJECTIVE: To compare four attenuation-compensation methods for backscatter coefficient (BSC) estimation, assessment of contrast, and classification of focal liver lesions (FLL).&#xD;&#xD;Approach: Ninety-seven patients with 100 FLL were scanned to collect radiofrequency ultrasound images. BSC methods relied on a reference phantom for system and operator-settings independent estimations. Method #1 employed a priori tissue layer segmentation and documented attenuation coefficients (AC) of each layer. Method #2 used a fixed total AC (0.85 dB/cm/MHz). Method #3 used local AC compensation. Method #4 jointly estimated total AC and BSC with a power law frequency model (bf^η). BSC@3MHz, b, η, total AC slope, and total AC were computed within segmented lesions. Lesion contrast was assessed with the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and classification performances were evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The composite reference standard was a combination of MRI and histopathology.&#xD;&#xD;Main results: The study included 30 primary and 26 secondary cancers, and 44 benign nodules. Parameter b provided the highest CNRs among BSC parameters (p < 0.0001) and gave higher CNRs than B-mode images (p < 0.0001). Method #3 was unsuitable with out-of-range values. Methods #1, #2, and #4 showed no significant differences for b, η, total AC slope, and total AC, whereas BSC@3MHz showed overestimations with Method #4 compared with Methods #1 and #2 (p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). For differentiating benign and malignant lesions, η provided the highest AUC of 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.82). For differentiating primary and secondary cancers, BSC@3MHz provided the highest AUC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.55-0.83). Classification AUCs did not differ between Methods #1, #2 and #4.&#xD;&#xD;Significance: BSC imaging improved lesion contrast compared to B-mode and could classify FLL. Method #4 emerged as the most practical as it does not require any a priori AC or segmentation.&#xD.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Published
2026-06-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ae7cd1
Primary Topic
Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of four attenuation-compensation methods for backscatter coefficient estimation and characterization of focal liver lesions

Elige Karam, Guy Cloutier, Iman Rafati, Maxime Barat et al.
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
article

Comparison of four attenuation-compensation methods for backscatter coefficient estimation and characterization of focal liver lesions

Elige Karam, Guy Cloutier, Iman Rafati, Maxime Barat, François Destrempes, Audrey Fohlen, Hélène Castel, Bich Nguyen, Arnaud Héroux, An Tang
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare four attenuation-compensation methods for backscatter coefficient (BSC) estimation, assessment of contrast, and classification of focal liver lesions (FLL).&#xD;&#xD;Approach: Ninety-seven patients with 100 FLL were scanned to collect radiofrequency ultrasound images. BSC methods relied on a reference phantom for system and operator-settings independent estimations. Method #1 employed a priori tissue layer segmentation and documented attenuation coefficients (AC) of each layer. Method #2 used a fixed total AC (0.85 dB/cm/MHz). Method #3 used local AC compensation. Method #4 jointly estimated total AC and BSC with a power law frequency model (bf^η). BSC@3MHz, b, η, total AC slope, and total AC were computed within segmented lesions. Lesion contrast was assessed with the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and classification performances were evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The composite reference standard was a combination of MRI and histopathology.&#xD;&#xD;Main results: The study included 30 primary and 26 secondary cancers, and 44 benign nodules. Parameter b provided the highest CNRs among BSC parameters (p < 0.0001) and gave higher CNRs than B-mode images (p < 0.0001). Method #3 was unsuitable with out-of-range values. Methods #1, #2, and #4 showed no significant differences for b, η, total AC slope, and total AC, whereas BSC@3MHz showed overestimations with Method #4 compared with Methods #1 and #2 (p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). For differentiating benign and malignant lesions, η provided the highest AUC of 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.82). For differentiating primary and secondary cancers, BSC@3MHz provided the highest AUC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.55-0.83). Classification AUCs did not differ between Methods #1, #2 and #4.&#xD;&#xD;Significance: BSC imaging improved lesion contrast compared to B-mode and could classify FLL. Method #4 emerged as the most practical as it does not require any a priori AC or segmentation.&#xD.

Physics in Medicine and Biology
Université de Montréal (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.