Using Fluorescence X-rays for Non-invasive Biopsy Advisors: Dr. Frank Carroll Dr. Ed Donnelly Mr. Robert Traeger Mr. Gary Shearer Team members: Savannah Gill Kelvin Lin Mike McHugh Trey Reece Derric Williams

Current Methods Conventional Methods Mammography MRI Cheap, Simple, Ubiquitous High False Negative Rate 10%-20% cancer missed MRI Safer More Sensitive More Costly 15x that of mammography High False Positive Rate One study showed 43% of suspicious MRI findings showed no cancer Twice as many false positive as mammograms Mammography X-Ray Image http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/genetics/sect2.htm

Project Background Current Methods are Invasive Our Project Hopes To Rid Detection Process of Needles, Anesthetic, & Pain Reduce radiation dose to patient Rid of contrast agent Reduce Time & Complications http://healtgate.partners.org

Our Method Monochromatic X-rays Fire X-rays of only one energy (or wavelength) Use SAXS emissions from elements in tissue

Theory Behind Our Method θ Small Angle X-ray Scattering

Project Description R d Task 1: Decrease the size of the x-ray beam using collimator Task 2: Block off the extra x-rays using beamstop Task 3: Detect and analyze scattering pattern Task 4: Determine material

Diffraction Patterns Paraffin Wax Similar to Adipose Tissue No Water Major Radial Peaks at: 12.6°, 11.4°, 10.2°

Diffraction Patterns Adipose/Gland Phantom 100/0 Major radial peak at: 11.5° Possible additional peaks at: 9.1°, 10.3°

Diffraction Patterns Adipose/Gland Phantom 30/70 Major radial peak at: 11.5° Possible additional peaks at: 9.1°, 10.3°

Diffraction Patterns Adipose/Gland Phantom 50/50 Major radial peak at: 11.5° New peak emerging at: 15.5°

Diffraction Patterns Adipose/Gland Phantom 30/70 Major radial peak at: 11.5° New clear peak at: 15.5°

Diffraction Patterns Adipose/Gland Phantom 0/100 Major radial peak at: 11.5°, 15.5° Possible additional peaks at: 13.8°, 8.9°

Diffraction Patterns Aluminum Dots instead of rings (crystalline) Multiple photon energies -> Smears Aluminum from Cullity, “Elements of X-Ray Diffraction”

Diffraction Patterns Wooden Block (1.5” Thick) Wood Grain Horizontal Wood Grain Vertical

Can you tell the difference?

Thin Breast 100 2.3 deg 200 4.7 deg 700 16.2 deg 800 18.3 deg

Breast Samples Thin Cancerous Breast Thick CancerousBreast

Muscle Samples Mouse Muscle Cancerous Muscle

Pig Samples Pig Skin Pig Fat

Reducing Noise – Monochromatic Beam Polychromatic Incident Beam Detector Thin Sample Thin Ring Created

Reducing Noise – Monochromatic Beam Incident Beam Detector Thin Sample Thin Ring Created

Current Status Collect more images of different material using Kevex X-ray X-ray more biological specimens Use monochromatic x-ray laser for clearer results Develop an algorithm to determine the cancerous tissue from normal tissue

Next Step Continue imaging biological samples Multiple trials needed Compare samples of normal tissue to cancerous tissue Determine composition of unknown images as given by Dr. Carroll

Dates to Come Finish new collimator Finish imaging biological samples By March 23rd Finish imaging biological samples By April 4th Image biological samples with monochromatic By April 13th Complete analyzation & poster By next oral presentation

References http://www.breastcancer.org/mri_vs_mammogram_high_risk.html http://www.mrsc.ucsf.edu/breast/what_is_breast_mri.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammography

Questions?