Validation of differences in backscatter coefficients among four ultrasound scanners with different beamforming methods

  • Masaaki OmuraEmail author
  • Hideyuki Hasegawa
  • Ryo Nagaoka
  • Kenji Yoshida
  • Tadashi YamaguchiEmail author
Original Article–Physics & Engineering



The backscatter coefficient (BSC) indicates the absolute scatterer property of a material, independently of clinicians and system settings. Our study verified that the BSC differed among the scanners, transducers, and beamforming methods used for quantitative ultrasound analyses of biological tissues.


Measurements were performed on four tissue-mimicking homogeneous phantoms containing spherical scatterers with mean diameters of 20 and 30 µm prepared at concentrations of 0.5 and 2.0 wt%, respectively. The BSCs in the different systems were compared using ultrasound scanners with two single-element transducers and five linear high- or low-frequency probes. The beamforming methods were line-by-line formation using focused imaging (FI) and parallel beam formation using plane wave imaging (PWI). The BSC of each system was calculated by the reference phantom method. The mean deviation from the theoretical BSC computed by the Faran model was analyzed as the benchmark validation of the calculated BSC.


The BSCs calculated in systems with different properties and beamforming methods well concurred with the theoretical BSC. The mean deviation was below ± 2.8 dB on average, and within the approximate standard deviation (± 2.2 dB at most) in all cases. These variations agreed with a previous study in which the largest error among four different scanners with FI beamforming was 3.5 dB.


The BSC in PWI was equivalent to those in the other systems and to those of FI beamforming. This result indicates the possibility of ultra-high frame-rate BSC analysis using PWI.


Backscatter coefficient Single-element transducer Linear phased array transducer Focused imaging Plane wave imaging 



This work was partly supported by JSPS Core-to-Core Program, and KAKENHI Grant numbers 17H05280 and 17J07762. We also acknowledge financial support from the Institute for Global Prominent Research and the Frontier Science Program of Graduate School of Science and Engineering at Chiba University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Rohrbach D, Wodlinger B, Wen J, Mamou J, Feleppa E. High-frequency quantitative ultrasound for imaging prostate cancer using a novel micro-ultrasound scanner. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44:1341–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tamura K, Mamou J, Coron A, Yoshida K, Yamaguchi T. Effects of signal saturation on QUS parameter estimates based on high- effects of signal saturation on QUS parameter estimates based on high-frequency-ultrasound signals acquired from isolated cancerous lymph nodes. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2017;64:1501–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oelze ML, Mamou J. Review of quantitative ultrasound: envelope statistics and backscatter coefficient imaging and contributions to diagnostic ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2016;63:336–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Destrempes F, Franceschini E, Yu FTH, Cloutier G. Unifying concepts of statistical and spectral quantitative ultrasound techniques. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35:488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oguri T, Tamura K, Yoshida K, Mamou J, Hasegawa H, Maruyama H, et al. Estimation of scatterer size and acoustic concentration in sound field produced by linear phased array transducer. Jpn J Appl Phys. 2015;54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wear KA, Stiles TA, Frank GR, Madsen EL, Cheng F, Feleppa EJ, et al. Interlaboratory comparison of measurements from 2 to 9 MHz. Am Inst Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:1235–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madsen EL, Dong F, Frank GR, Garra BS, Wear KA, Wilson T, et al. Interlaboratory comparison of ultrasonic backscatter, attenuation, and speed measurements. J Ultrasound Med. 1999;18:615–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson JJ, Herd M-T, King MR, Haak A, Hafez ZT, Song J, et al. Interlaboratory comparison of backscatter coefficient estimates for tissue-mimicking phantoms. Ultrason Imaging. 2010;32:48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nam K, Rosado-Mendez IM, Wirtzfeld LA, Pawlicki AD, Kumar V, Madsen EL, et al. Ultrasonic attenuation and backscatter coefficient estimates of rodent-tumor-mimicking structures: comparison of results among clinical scanners. Ultrason Imaging. England. 2011;33:233–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nam K, Rosado-Mendez IM, Wirtzfeld LA, Ghoshal G, Pawlicki AD, Madsen EL, et al. Comparison of ultrasound attenuation and backscatter estimates in layered tissue-mimicking phantoms among three clinical scanners. Ultrason Imaging. 2012;34:209–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tanter M, Fink M. Ultrafast Imaging in Biomedical Ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2014;61:102–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hasegawa H. Apodized adaptive beamformer. J Med Ultrason. 2017;44:155–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Albinsson J, Hasegawa H, Takahashi H, Id EB, Ramalli A, Ryd Å, et al. Iterative 2D tissue motion tracking in ultrafast ultrasound imaging. Appl Sci. 2018;8:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garcia-Duitama J, Chayer B, Han A, Garcia D, Oelze ML, Cloutier G. Experimental application of ultrafast imaging to spectral tissue characterization. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41:2506–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salles S, Liebgott H, Basset O, Cachard C, Vray D, Lavarello R, et al. Experimental evaluation of spectral-based plane. Wave Compound. 2014;61:1824–34.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strohm EM, Moore MJ, Kolios MC. Single cell photoacoustic microscopy: a review. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron. 2016;22:137–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Omura M, Yoshida K, Akita S, Yamaguchi T. Verification of echo amplitude envelope analysis method in skin tissues for quantitative follow-up of healing ulcers. Jpn J Appl Phys. 2018;57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mozumi M, Hasegawa H. Adaptive beamformer combined with phase coherence weighting applied to ultrafast ultrasound. Appl Sci. 2018;8:204-1–-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodriguez-Molares A, Rindal OMH, Bernard O, Nair A, Bell MAL, Liebgott H, et al. The UltraSound ToolBox. 2017 IEEE Int Ultrason Symp. 2017. pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuc R, Schwartz M. Estimating the acoustic attenuation coefficient slope for liver from reflected ultrasound signals. IEEE Trans Sonics Ultrason. 1979;26:353–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oelze ML, O’Brien WD. Defining optimal axial and lateral resolution for estimating scatterer properties from volumes using ultrasound backscatter. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:3226–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yao LX, Zagzebski JA, Madsen EL. Backscatter coefficient measurements using a reference phantom to extract depth-dependent instrumentation factors. Ultrason Imaging. 1990;12:58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Faran JJ. Sound scattering by solid cylinders and spheres. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;405:405–18.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coila AL, Lavarello R. Regularized spectral log difference technique for ultrasonic attenuation imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2018;65:378–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vajihi Z, Rosado-Mendez IM, Hall TJ, Rivaz H. Low variance estimation of backscatter quantitative ultrasound parameters using dynamic programming. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2018;65:2042–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nam K, Zagzebski JA, Hall TJ. Simultaneous backscatter and attenuation estimation using a least squares method with constraints. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011;37:2096–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Science and Engineering (Frontier Science Program)Chiba UniversityInageJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Science and EngineeringUniversity of ToyamaToyamaJapan
  3. 3.Center for Frontier Medical EngineeringChiba UniversityInageJapan

Personalised recommendations