Spatial Resolution Evaluation of a Microwave
System for Breast Cancer Screening
Daniel Tajik*1 , Jessica Trac1 , Natalia K. Nikolova1 ,
1 Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, *tajikd@mcmaster.ca
Abstract—The ability of microwave breast imaging to achieve
sub-centimeter spatial resolution has been proven before in
simulation and simple experimental studies. However, detecting
sub-centimeter tumours depends not only on the theoretical
spatial resolution limit, but also on the level of background clutter
and measurement uncertainty. Therefore, estimating the actual
limit of the smallest detectable object in a specific measurement
setup is critical before the setup can be deployed in a clinical
scenario. Here, we present a method of such evaluation on
a planar microwave imaging setup for breast cancer imaging.
The method utilizes the measurement of a small scattering
probe of known size and permittivity in a uniform embedding
medium. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the generated point
spread function can then be evaluated to determine the system-
specific spatial resolution. The effectiveness of this approach is
demonstrated in an experimental study of a compressed-breast
phantom. This method can be applied to evaluate the limit of
the size of detectable objects for other acquisitions systems, e.g.
hemispherical or cylindrical antenna configurations.
Index Terms—microwave imaging, breast cancer, calibration,
CNR, SNR, point spread function, PSF.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Biennual breast cancer screening for at-risk age groups is
commonly recommended [1], [2]. The goal of such regular
screening is to identify tumours at an early stage of growth
when they are easily removed and have less chance of re-
currence. Unfortunately, the common modality used is X-ray
mammography, which itself is carcinogenic. It is therefore
evident that a new methodology for early stage breast cancer
detection would be beneficial.
Microwave imaging is one possibility for breast cancer
screening. For the purposes of breast cancer screening, it
is expected to be able to detect tumours of volumes ap-
proximately 1 cm3 [3], [4]. A wide variety of technologies
have been developed, with acquisition surfaces including pla-
nar, cylindrical, and hemispherical [3]. Critically, microwave
imaging systems are nonionizing, low-cost, and compact,
making it a practical modality for large-scale breast cancer
screening programs. Unfortunately, the challenges surrounding
microwave image reconstruction remain significant. While
many simulation studies have been performed over the past
several decades, expensive computational cost and difficulties
transitioning into experimental studies hinder the development
of clinically viable methods [3].
One major challenge in developing microwave imaging
technology is the lack of methods for the evaluating of the
quality of the acquisition setup, and in particular, the system-
specific spatial resolution. Theoretically, the spatial resolution
is known to be limited by the wavelength of the radiation (i.e.
diffraction limit) [5]. However, in practice, the background
clutter and noise caused by system-specific implementations
degrade the actual spatial resolution. In order to verify that the
data acquired by the experimental setup have adequate signal-
to-noise ratio (SNR) for image reconstruction, the acquisition
itself must be evaluated.
In this work, an experimental method is proposed to eval-
uate the ability of a microwave imaging system to resolve
cancerous targets of 1 cm3 and to quantify the actual res-
olution limits. Similar to quality assurance methods used in
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [6], this approach utilizes
the measurement of a small scattering probe of a permittivity
close to that of cancerous tissue embedded in a uniform
background medium similar to averaged breast tissue. This
measurement, in combination with a measurement of the back-
ground medium, generates a point spread function (PSF). The
contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), a measure similar to SNR, is
then calculated from the PSF data sets. The size of the tumour
simulant alongside the CNR evaluation can then determine
the resolving ability of the imaging setup. An experimental
study is performed using a breast phantom measured with a
plannar scanner. Validation of the data quality is carried out
by forming images using a direct inversion imaging algorithm
known as quantitative microwave holography (QMH) [7], [8].
Data with poor CNR are excluded from the reconstruction
process, improving the final image quality.
II. Q UANTITATIVE M ICROWAVE H OLOGRAPHY AND THE
P OINT S PREAD F UNCTION
Quantitative microwave holography (QMH) has been previ-
ously derived and experimentally demonstrated [7]–[9]. Here,
only a brief overview is provided. QMH utilizes the S-
parameter measurement of three separate objects to perform
image reconstruction. The first is the measurement of the ref-
erence object (RO) which is the uniform embedding medium
in the absence of scatterers. The second is the measurement of
a point spread function (PSF), where a small scattering probe
of known size and permittivity is embedded. Finally, there is
the measurement of the object under test (OUT).
The QMH forward model in terms of scattering parameters
is [5], [8]:
ZZZ
sc,PSF
sc,OUT
Sik (r; f ) ≈ ρ(r0 )Sik (r − r0xy , r00 ; f )dv 0 , (1)
V
 sc,OUT
where Sik (r; f ) is the scattered field response of the OUT
acquired with the receiving antenna i and the transmitting
sc,PSF
antenna k, Sik (r; f ) is the scattered field of the PSF, ρ(r0 ) is
the reflectivity function which is the object of reconstruction,
r = (x, y, z̄) is the location of the receiving antenna on the
acquisition plane where z̄ is a fixed value, f is the frequency,
r0xy = (x0 , y 0 , 0) is a location within the imaged volume V
at the z = 0 plane, and r00 = (0, 0, 0) is the center of the
imaged volume. This is also the location of the scattering
sc,PSF
probe within the imaged volume when the PSF Sik
acquired. As is evident from (1), the forward model of QMH
is a 2D convolution in the lateral directions x and y of the PSF
measurement and the reflectivity function.
Only two data sets are apparent in the forward model,
namely, the scattered response of the OUT and that of the PSF.
However, it is important to acknowledge that the scattered-
field response of either data set cannot be directly measured.
Instead, the scattered response is derived from the measured
total-field response (e.g OUT, PSF) as well as the incident
field response (e.g. RO). Consider Born’s approximation in S-
parameter form, which assumes that the total-field response
is a superposition of the incident-field and the scattered-field
responses [8], [10]:
tot,OBJ inc sc,OBJ
Sik (r; f ) ≈ Sik (r; f ) + Sik (r; f ).
Here, OBJ can be substituted for either PSF or OUT, and
inc
Sik (r; f ) is the measurement of the RO. Note that the RO
measurement is performed at every spatial position; this has
the benefit of de-embedding a laterally nonuniform back-
ground measurement from both the PSF and OUT measure-
ments. Once the data sets are acquired, (1) can be inverted
in the Fourier domain and the reflectivity function ρ can be
reconstructed quantitatively as shown in [8].
However, before inversion, the data can be analyzed to
ensure that the signals from scatterers embedded in the chosen
background medium are sufficiently strong to rise above the
level of noise and measurement uncertainties. The sources of
noise and measurement uncertainties vary widely depending
on the measurement setup and the calibration procedures.
Here, we only emphasize that in microwave imaging of the
breast the measurement uncertainties associated with position-
ing errors and system calibration are dominant compared to
electronic noise. Here, a benefit of measuring the PSF directly
instead of using far-field approximations or simulations be-
comes apparent. The PSF measurement captures the behaviour
of the acquisition setup, avoiding modelling errors. Thus, the
PSF measurement can have a second use; namely, establishing
the potential of the data acquisition system to provide high-
quality data to the image reconstruction algorithm wherein
scattering signals from inclusions as small as the desired
spatial resolution rise above measurement uncertainties.
III. P OINT S PREAD F UNCTION D ESIGN
There are several factors in selecting the PSF scattering
probe. The first one is the permittivity of the scattering probe.
(r; f ) is Fig. 1. The magnitude of a representative PSF 2-D data set. The three zones
used in the contrast-to-noise evaluation are the signal region, the background
region, and the exclusion zone region.
As shown in [11], the forward model in (1) is most accurate
when
r,OUT (r0 ) ≈ r,sp (r00 ), (3)
or,
|r,OUT (r0 )|, |r,sp (r00 )|  |r,b |. (4)
In the case of breast cancer imaging and detection, the
permittivity of the scattering probe (sp) should be selected
to be close to that of cancerous tissue. This suggests a high
permittivity scattering probe, where r ranges from 50 to 70
(2) [12].
The size of the scattering probe should be selected to be
near the desired resolution of the imaging setup. Far-field
approximations suggest a resolution limit of [5]:
λmin
∆ζmax = , ζ ≡ x, y (5)
4 sin αmax
where λmin is the shortest wavelength of the radiation in the
background medium, and αmax is the largest angle of arrival
(also known as viewing angle) at which the signal scattered
by the target can be received [5], [7]. For simplicity, the
typical spatial resolution limit is estimated to be λ2min . The
scattering probe size should be selected to be close to this
expected spatial resolution limit or the one desired in the
specific application, e.g. 1 cm3 in breast cancer screening.
Finally, the selection of the background permittivity is a
key factor. Equation (4) suggests a background permittivity
significantly higher than that of the OUT and the scattering
probe. Unfortunately, this can be challenging when paired
with the high loss associated with commonly used embedding
materials such as water and ultrasound gel (see Table 1).
Thus, a trade-off is necessary in order to guarantee the highest
quality PSF data while maximizing the fidelity of the final
reconstructed image.
IV. P OINT S PREAD F UNCTION E VALUATION
To evaluate the quality of the acquired S-parameter data,
the SNR of the PSF measurement can be used. The PSF data
sets are independent of any subsequent OUT measurements
and are thus suitable for system performance evaluation before
deployment in a specific scenario. Also, the measured object
(the scattering probe in a uniform background medium) is
simple enough to allow for identifying the spatial and fre-
quency behaviour of the measurement uncertainties and the
background clutter.
Image SNR is typically defined as [5]:
average(Sik (As ))
SN R = , As ∈ D, Ab ∈ D (6)
std(Sik (Ab ))
where Sik is the measured complex-valued S-parameter, As is
a region within the acquisition plane D that contains signal
from a scattering object, Ab is a region within D that contains (a) (b)
only the background response where no scattering from a
Fig. 2. Photos of the compressed breast phantom: a) layer 2 from the bottom
target is present, and std denotes standard deviation. As shown of the phantom, containing two blueberries, and b) layer 4 of the phantom,
in [13], the average and standard deviations are calculated to containing two blueberries and mozzarella cheese.
generate real valued numbers:
 
1 X N 
average(D) =  di  , (7)
 
N 
i=1

N
! 12 N
1 X ¯2 1 X
std(D) = |di − d| , d¯ = di . (8)
N − 1 i=1 N i=1
Another approach is to analyse the contrast-to-noise ratio
(CNR) [13]. CNR is very similar to SNR, except for the fact
that the average of the background is subtracted from the Fig. 3. Photo of the five layer breast phantom, containing two layers with
average of the signal: tumour and fibroglandular simulants. The phantom is encased in plastic wrap
to protect it from the embedding medium.
sc,P SF sc,P SF
average(Sik (As )) − average(Sik (Ab ))
CN R = sc,P SF
,
std(Sik (Ab )) are custom manufactured to have permittivity that emulates
(9) averaged scattered fibroglandular breast tissue. In two of the
As ∈ D, Ab ∈ D. (10) five carbon rubber sheets, a section is removed and different
In the context of evaluating the PSF data set, CNR provides tissue-mimicking materials are inserted. In layer 2 (second
a more meaningful value. The scattered field data set Sik sc,P SF layer from the bottom), two blueberries are placed in the
already has the background incident field (Sik RO
) subtracted right side of the phantom. In layer 4 (fourth layer from
from the raw PSF data Sik tot,P SF
. Subtracting the averaged the bottom), two blueberries are placed inside a section of
noise signal further removes the baseline signal from the mozzarella cheese. While the selection of these materials
data set, providing a value that can be compared across all may seem strange, they accurately mimick the permittivities
frequencies. of targeted tissues. The blueberry permittivity matches very
The region As containing the ‘signal’ is selected at the well with cancerous tissue, whereas the mozzarella cheese
location of the scattering probe (see Fig. 1). A region around permittivity closely resembles that of fibroglandular tissue
the probe can be defined by all voxel locations containing (see Table 1) [12]. These tissue components are surrounded
signal within 3 dB of the maximum signal magnitude at the by a mixture of peanut butter and jam (PBJ) [8], which is
scattering probe location. The background response area Ab designed to closely match the permittivity of the carbon-rubber
is chosen to be as large as possible while also excluding sheets. This ‘filling’ medium removes air gaps between tissue
the diffraction (ripple-like) responses created by the scattering
probe. Thus, a third region, which can be referred to as
an exclusion zone Ae , is defined to describe regions with TABLE I
AVERAGED D IELECTRIC P ROPERTIES OF M ATERIALS FROM
inseparable signal and noise components. 3 GH Z TO 8 GH Z

V. E XPERIMENTAL E VALUATION Material (Structure) 0 00

To test the CNR evaluation of our planar scanning acqui- Thick Carbon-rubber Sheet (Averaged Breast Tissue) 10.91 2.84
sition setup and identify the system-specific spatial resolution PBJ (Embedding Medium) 10.41 5.07
limit, a compressed breast phantom measurement is prepared, Blueberry (Cancerous Tissue) 55.27 16.63
similar to the experiment demonstrated in [8]. A 5.5 cm Mozarrella Cheese (Fibroglandular Tissue) 23.83 11.27
thick tissue phantom is constructed of five 1.1 cm carbon Scattering Probe (PSF) 50.00 0.05
rubber sheets (see Fig. 2 and 3). The carbon rubber sheets Ultrasound Gel 72.70 21.87
 (a) (b)
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Photos of: a) the acquisition setup, and b) the Plexiglas tray. A platform Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the real part of the permittivity of the tissue
raster scans along x and y while being interrogated by a stationary transmitting phantom: a) reconstruction using data across all frequencies and b) using
TEM horn antenna and a stationary receiving bowtie antenna array. The tray data at frequencies where the CNR of the PSF is higher than 3 dB.
holding the OBJ is placed on the wooden mounts. The walls of the tray are
covered by microwave absorbers to reduce the impact of exterior interference
with the scan. The tray in the photo is filled with only PBJ in preparation for
the RO measurement.

components. Once the layers of the phantom are stacked,

they are taped together and placed into a Plexiglas tray filed
with PBJ. The tray PBJ acts as a lossy embedding medium,
avoiding the high contrast interface which would have existed
if the phantom were placed in air [8]. Once the phantom is
inserted into the tray, a lid is placed on the top of the tray.
Microwave absorbers are placed around the tray to further
reduce reflections caused by the Plexiglas tray. See Fig. 4a for
the acquisition setup, and Fig. 4b for the tray when prepared Fig. 6. Graph depicting the CNR of one set of measumrents (S51 ) as well
as the 3 dB threshold cutoff. The CNR evaluation was generated with the
for the RO measurement. algorithm reported in [16] and can be found in [17].
The PSF measurement is performed with a cylindrical
ceramic scattering probe of 1 cm diameter and 1 cm height.
The permittivity is selected to be close to the permittivity of is connected to the transmitting antenna. This power level may
the blueberry (see Table 1). The scattering probe is embedded seem too high to ensure compliance with specfic absorption
in a set of uniform thick carbon-rubber sheets identical to rate (SAR) limits, but it is selected with the assumption of
those used in the tissue phantom, which itself is embedded in an implementation through an electronically switched system
a set of high-loss microwave absorbers. The scattering probe where the illumination time is much shorter. Further detail can
is placed in the center of the imaged volume, aligned with the be found in [8]. The tray is placed on a scanning platform,
3rd layer of the tissue phantom. and moves in 3 mm increments across a 144 mm by 144 mm
In this experiment, the OUT and the PSF are measured acquisition plane along x and y. A frequency range from 3
in two separate background mediums. In order to accurately GHz to 8 GHz is measured in 100 MHz increments.
extract the scattered field responses, two RO measurements
VI. R ESULTS
are performed: a) a measurement of the tray with only PBJ
present, and b) a measurement of the tray with only the high- The reconstruction of the real part of the permittivity using
loss microwave absorbers and the homogeneous carbon-rubber data across every frequency measurement can be seen in
sheets (no scattering probe). Each of these measurements is
subtracted from the respective total-field measurement of the
OUT and PSF.
The acquisition setup consists of a transmitting TEM horn
antenna [14], and a 9-element receiving bowtie array [15]. The
antennas scan planes on both sides of the phantom, which
are at a 2 mm stand-off distance from the phantom surface.
Only the 5 co-pole bowtie antennas are used (1 aligned with
the TEM horn’s boresight, and 4 off-center). The remaining
4 cross-pole antenna are connected to 50-ohm loads. Each
antenna is connected through an R3970 Advantest 16 port RF (a) (b)
switch and to an R3770 Advantest vector network analyzer Fig. 7. Magnitudes of the scattered field responses of a PSF measurement at:
(VNA). A total of five tranmission S-parameters (S21 ,S31 ,S41 , a) 4.3 GHz and b) 4.6 GHz. The signal in a) is much lower than the signal
S51 , S61 ) are acquired. An RF-LAMBDA 8-W power amplifier in b), leading to the poor CNR as shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 5a. This permittivity value is only an estimate since
the reconstruction employs Born’s approximation of the total
internal field [8]. Note the rippling behaviours throughout the
image deteriorating the image quality. To improve the image
reconstruction quality, a CNR evaluation is performed on the
scattered PSF data at every frequency [16]. The total number
of frequencies which surpass the 3 dB threshold is higher than
50%, indicating the acquisition setup is able to resolve 1 cm
sized tumour objects (see Fig. 6). This indicates that the spatial
resolution limit of this acquisition system is at minimum 1
cm3 . All data at measurement frequencies where the CNR is
below 3 dB is not used in the image reconstruction. See Fig. 7
for a comparison between a CNR above and below 3 dB The
improved reconstruction can be seen in Fig. 5b. The locations
of the blueberries and PBJ can be more clearly identified with
the reduction of the rippling behaviour.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
A method for evaluating the system-specific resolution lim-
its of a microwave imaging system is proposed. This method
utilizes a point spread function measurement containing a
scattering probe of known size and permittivity similar to
that of early stage breast cancer, embedded in a medium
with a permittivity resembling that of averaged breast tissue.
The contrast-to-noise ratio of the PSF is acquired, enabling
evaluation of the quality of the acquisition system. If more
than 50% of CNR calculations are below the 3 dB threshold,
the system is not expected to meet the PSF resolution limit.
An experimental reconstruction of a breast phantom demon-
strates the improvement to the imaging system when data
sets with poor CNR are removed from the reconstruction
process. The code developed to evaluate the CNR of the PSF
measurements is available online [17]. This method can be
readily extended to microwave imaging systems with non-
planar antenna configurations (e.g. cylindrical and spherical).
To guarantee a thorough evaluation of the system, the scat-
tering probe should be positioned farthest from the antennas,
which typically means the center of the imaged volume.
Future work aims to explore other possibilities in evaluating
system quality through measurements. MRI quality assurance
approaches utilize calibration phantoms which contain a num-
ber of different inclusions to evaluate a large number of met-
rics. A similar approach can be implemented for microwave
imaging technology, allowing for system-specific evaluation
high-contrast resolution, low-contrast detection, signal unifor-
mity, and many more.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
R EFERENCES
[1] K. C. Oeffinger, E. T. H. Fontham, R. Etzioni, et al., “Breast cancer
screening for women at average risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the
American Cancer Society,” J. American Med. Assoc., vol. 314, no. 15,
pp. 1599–1614, Oct. 2015.
[2] N. Dimitrova, Z. E. S. Parkinson, A. U. Tekin, et al., “European
Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis - the European
Breast Guidelines,” JRC Technical Reports, 2016, doi:10.2788/503032.
[3] N. K. Nikolova, “Microwave imaging for breast cancer,” IEEE Microwave
Mag., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 78–94, Dec. 2011.
[4] R. C. Conceição, J. J. Mohr, M. O’Halloran (Eds.), An Introduction to
Microwave Imaging for Breast Cancer Detection, Springer, 2016.
[5] N. K. Nikolova, Introduction to Microwave Imaging, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2017.
[6] L. Kaufman, D. M. Kramer, L. E. Crooks, and D. A. Ortendahl,
“Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging”, Radiology, vol. 173,
no. 1, pp. 265–267, 1989.
[7] D. Tajik, A. D. Pitcher, and N. K. Nikolova, “Comparative study of the
Rytov and Born approximations in quantitative microwave holography,”
Prog. Electromag. B , vol. 79, pp. 1-19, Oct. 2017.
[8] D. Tajik, F. Foroutan, D. S. Shumakov, A. D. Pitcher, and N. K.
Nikolova, “Real-time imaging of a compressed breast phantom with
planar scanning,” J. Electromagn. RF. Microw. Med. Bio., vol. 2, no.
3, pp. 154–162, May 2018.
[9] D. S. Shumakov, D. Tajik, A. S. Beaverstone, and N. K. Nikolova,
“Real-time quantitative reconstruction methods in microwave imaging,”
Chapter 17, in A. Lakhtakia and C.M. Furse, Eds., The World of Applied
Electromagnetics - In Appreciation of Magdy Fahmy Iskander . Springer,
2017.
[10] T. M. Habashy, R. W. Groom, and B. R. spies, “Beyond the Born
and Rytov approximations: a nonlinear approach to electromagnetic
scattering,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 98, no. B2, pp. 1759–1775, Feb. 1993.
[11] S. Tu, J. J. McCombe, D. S. Shumakov, and N. K. Nikolova, “Fast
quantitative microwave imaging with resolvent kernel extracted from
measurements,” Inverse Probl., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 045007 (33 pp.), 2015.
[12] T. Sugitani, S. Kubota, S. Kuroki, K. Sogo, K. Arihiro, M. Okada, T.
Kadoya, M. Hide, M. Oda, and T. Kikkawa, “Complex permittivities of
breast tumor tissues obtained from cancer surgeries,” Applied Physics
Letters, vol. 104, Article ID 253702, Jun. 2014.
[13] J. J. McCombe, and N. K. Nikolova, “SNR assessment of microwave
imaging systems,” IEEE Ant. Propag. Symp. (APS 2014), Memphis, TN,
pp. 149–150, 2014.
[14] R. K. Amineh, A. Trehan, and N. K. Nikolova, “TEM horn antenna for
ultra-wide band microwave breast imaging,” Prog. Electrom. Res. B, vol.
13, pp. 59–74, 2009.
[15] R. K. Amineh, J. J. McCombe, A. Khalatpour, and N. K. Nikolova,
“Microwave holography using point spread functions measured with
calibration objects,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 403–
417, Feb. 2015.
[16] J. Trac, “Classifying the quality of point spread functions with contrast-
to-noise ratios,” Electromagnetic Vision (EMVi) Res. Lab Technical Re-
port, McMaster University, Aug. 2018.
[17] N. K. Nikolova, “MATLAB Codes,” [Online]. Avaliable:
http://www.ece.mcmaster.ca/faculty/nikolova/IntroMicrowaveImaging/MatlabCodes.
[Accessed Oct. 10 2018].