RADIO SCIENCE, VOL. 43, RS6S06, doi:10.

1029/2007RS003807, 2008
Click
Here
for
Full
Article
Evaluation of a hemi-spherical wideband
antenna array for breast cancer imaging
M. Klemm,1 I. J. Craddock,1 A. Preece,1 J. Leendertz,1 and R. Benjamin2
Received 10 December 2007; revised 11 June 2008; accepted 1 October 2008; published 19 December 2008.
[1] Using similar techniques to ground penetrating radars, microwave detection of breast
tumors is a potential nonionizing and noninvasive alternative to traditional body-imaging
techniques. In order to develop an imaging system, the team at Bristol have been
working on a number of antenna array prototypes, based around a stacked-patch element,
starting with simple pairs of elements and progressing to fully populated planar arrays.
As the system commences human subject trials, a curved breast phantom has been
developed along with an approximately hemi-spherical conformal array. This contribution
will present details of the conformal array design and initial results from this unique
experimental imaging system as applied to an anatomically shaped breast phantom.
Citation: Klemm, M., I. J. Craddock, A. Preece, J. Leendertz, and R. Benjamin (2008), Evaluation of a hemi-spherical
wideband antenna array for breast cancer imaging, Radio Sci., 43, RS6S06, doi:10.1029/2007RS003807.

1. Introduction [4] To date most of the work on the breast cancer

[2] Breast cancer is the most common cancer in
women. X-ray mammography is currently the most
effective detection technique; however, it suffers from
relatively high missed- and false-detection rates, involves
uncomfortable compression of the breast and also entails
exposure to ionizing radiation. Microwave detection of
breast tumors is a potential nonionizing alternative being
investigated by a number of groups [Hagness et al.,
1998; Fear et al., 2003; Fear, 2005; Bialkowski and Wee,
2007]. In these microwave-based systems, in a similar
fashion to ground penetrating radars, microwaves are
transmitted from an antenna or antenna array, and the
received signals, which contain reflections from tumors,
are recorded and analyzed.
[3] This contribution presents details of the conformal
radar-based breast cancer detection system. Unlike the
other published work on the subject, the developed
experimental radar system operates in a multistatic mode,
originally proposed for breast cancer and land mine
detection by [Benjamin, 1996]. Compared to the mono-
static approaches, a multistatic approach with a fully
populated antenna array enables far more data to be
gathered.
1
Centre for Communications Research, Department of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
2
Bristol, UK.
Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.
0048-6604/08/2007RS003807$11.00
RS6S06
detection have been based on the computer simulations
[Kosmas et al., 2004; Abas et al., 2007]. There have been
only a few experimental breast-imaging radar systems
reported in the open literature [Craddock et al., 2005; Sill
and Fear, 2005]. In this paper we present for the first
time an assessment of techniques to de-embed the tumor
response from real experimental data.
2. Development of an Experimental System
2.1. Antenna Design
[5] A prerequisite for all microwave imaging systems
is a suitable antenna array. Initial work concentrated on
developing a simple but low-profile and wide-band
antenna that would cover the 4 – 10 GHz frequency
range. An aperture stacked-patch antenna was designed
for this purpose. The antenna used herein is a modified
version of the antenna presented in [Nilavalan et al.,
2007], where it was employed in a planar array for breast
imaging.
[6] For the conformal array, the antenna was rede-
signed. The final antenna design in presented in Figure 1.
The antenna cross-section, dielectric materials and size
of individual patches were kept the same as in [Nilavalan
et al., 2007]. Only the ground plane size (and hence a
feeding line substrate) was substantially reduced to 28

17 mm2. Dimensions of two dielectric substrates where
patches are printed are 17
17 mm2. Additionally, as we
learned from the experience of using the planar array
[Craddock et al., 2005] it is better to shield the antenna
from the surrounding environment, therefore we added a
1 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 1. Cavity backed aperture stacked-patch antenna for breast cancer detection.

cavity at the back of the antenna. The cavity has a planar
inner dimensions of 18
11 mm2 and is 12 mm long. To
absorb the back radiation of the antenna and avoid any
resonances the cavity was lined with a broad-band
absorbing material (Eccosorb FGM-40 from Emmerson
& Cumming).
[7] In Figure 2 we present the measured antenna input
match (S11), which shows that the antenna is matched
(S11 < 5 dB) between 4 and 10 GHz. The good
transient performance in this frequency range is visible
when looking at the simulated (FDTD) transmit transfer
function of the antenna shown in Figure 3. The 10 dB
bandwidth of the transmit transfer function is about 7
GHz (from 3.5 to 10.5 GHz).
[8] Additionally, we performed a transmission measure-
ment between two antennas (face to face, 10 cm separa-
tion) immersed in a lossy matching liquid (described in
the following paragraph). As an input pulse we chose the
waveform presented in Figure 4, which covers a fre-
quency range between 4 and 9 GHz on a 3 dB level. As
described by Hines and Stinehelfer [1974], this type of
pulse is suitable for time domain analysis of microwave
systems when performing measurements in the frequency-
domain. The resulting pulse transmitted between our

Figure 2. Measured S11 (input match) characteristic of the antenna.

2 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 3. Simulated (FDTD) transmit transfer function (at boresite) of the antenna.

antennas and its spectrum is shown in Figure 5. The 2.2. Conformal Symmetrical Antenna Array Design
transmitted pulse is clearly longer than the input pulse,
[9] Given the effort in designing and constructing a
due to the antenna’s response but also due to a lossy and
conformal hemi-spherical array, the intention from the
dispersive immersion medium. Comparing the simulated
outset was to design not only an array for laboratory use
transfer function of the single antenna (see Figure 4) with
on a realistic, curved phantom, but also one that would
the measured two-antenna transfer function (see Figure 5),
serve as an initial clinical prototype. Approximately 20
we can clearly see the effect of the lossy medium. The
female volunteers came forward from the University and
10 dB bandwidth of the measured transfer function was
the fit between their breasts and various plastic spherical
reduced to 3 GHz (3.5 – 6.5 GHz), for the 10 cm distance
sections was assessed with them lying in a prone position
between antennas. Obviously, as the distance between
- the prone (face-down) position being felt to offer the
antennas with change, also the transfer function will have
best chance of the breast forming a gently and uniformly
different 10 dB bandwidth and also its maximum value
curved shape. Following this assessment, the dimensions
will be at slightly different frequency. From these trans-
of the array were input into a 3-D CAD model, along
mission experiments it is apparent that dispersive losses
with the antenna elements and all supporting metalwork.
of the normal breast tissue will have a biggest impact on
[10] The resulting antenna array is formed around
limiting the achievable temporal resolution.
lower part of a 78 mm-radius sphere, in four rows of
four antennas. The side view of the array and breast

Figure 4. Synthetic pulse used as an antenna excitation: (left) time domain waveform and (right)
spectrum.
3 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 5. Two antenna transfer function (along boreside direction). Antennas were immersed in
the lossy matching liquid, 10 cm distance.

model is shown in Figure 6. The arrangement of antenna [13] Next, a curved skin phantom was developed. The
elements (top view) seen in Figure 7 gives enough skin layer is 2 mm thick, it is a part of a 58 mm-radius
clearance for the cables and connectors, which pass hemi-sphere. When the skin phantom is fitted into the
between the elements of adjacent rows. The partly array, as shown in Figure 9, it lies 20 mm above the
constructed array is shown in Figure 8. antenna elements. This standoff between antennas and
[11] The clear advantage of the designed curved array breast provides a reasonable coverage of a breast by an
is its conformity to the breast’s shape, providing a good antenna radiation pattern. The electrical parameters of
breast coverage by antennas radiation patterns. The real the skin layer were chosen again according to the
aperture array, together with the switching network, give previously published data: the material is dispersive
a fast data acquisition. In a single scan there is no and at 6 GHz it has a relative dielectric constant of 30
mechanical scanning involved, saving a lot of measure- and attenuation of 16 dB/cm.
ment time (it is important for measurement with real [14] After fitting the skin phantom into antenna array, a
patients). Another benefit of this radar system is the fact plastic tank is connected to the array as presented in
that it operates in a multistatic mode, what gives a far Figure 10. The tank is then filled with the normal breast-
greater spatial diversity compared with the monostatic fat equivalent liquid (the same as matching liquid).
operation. The main disadvantage of the presented real [15] A tumor phantom material with a relative dielec-
aperture radar system is the antenna coupling, as well as tric constant close to 50 and conductivity 7 S/m (at 6 GHz)
additional reflection from mechanical parts of the array. was also developed. This gives a contrast between
We will describe later in the paper how to deal with these dielectric properties of breast fat and tumor phantom
undesired signals.
2.3. Three-Dimensional Physical Breast Phantom
[12] For experimental testing we developed appropri-
ate materials and a 3-D breast phantom. As shown in
Figure 6, during the measurements the antennas are
immersed in a matching liquid, to reduce reflections
from the skin and for a more compact antenna design.
We decided that this matching liquid would be the same
as the material simulating properties of a normal breast-
fat, mainly for practical reasons (only one liquid required
in manufacturing). The developed matching and normal
breast tissue equivalent liquid [Leendertz et al., 2003]
has a relative dielectric constant of about 9.5 and
attenuation of 1.2 dB/cm at 6 GHz. This material is also
dispersive (see Craddock et al. [2005] for its frequency- Figure 6. Hemi-spherical antenna array and breast
dependent characteristics). phantom configuration: side view.
4 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 7. Positions of antenna elements in the array, looking from the top.

Figure 8. Partly constructed real antenna array.

5 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

[20] The characteristic equation of the improved DAS

algorithm is expressed as:
Z t
Fe ð x; y; zÞ ¼ QF ð x; y; zÞ 
0
!2
X
M
 wi ð x; y; zÞ  yi ðt  Ti ð x; y; zÞÞ dt
i¼1

ð1Þ

where M = N(N-1)/2 (N is the number of antennas in the

array), wi is the location dependent weight calculated
during preprocessing (steps 2 and 3 of the preproces-
sing), yi is the measured radar signal and Ti is the time
delay. The time delay Ti for a given transmitting and
Figure 9. Skin phantom fitted into the antenna array. receiving antenna is calculated based on the antenna’s
position, position of the focal point r = (x, y, z) as well as
an estimate of average wave propagation speed, which in
materials of around 1:5. Recently published data in our processing is simply assumed to be constant across
Lazebnik et al. [2007], based on a large clinical study, the band (though in our experiments it will not be). As
however suggest that the contrast between healthy and we recently presented in Klemm et al. [2008], by using
malignant breast tissues might be lower, at least in some this additional weighting factor QF, quality of images is
women. significantly improved due to the clutter reduction
capability of the new algorithm.
3. Focusing Algorithms
4. Array Evaluation Results and Imaging
[16] To obtain the 3-D image of the scattered energy,
we employ postreception synthetic focusing. We employ Results
a modified version of a classical delay-and-sum (DAS) 4.1. Tumor Response De-embedding Techniques
beamforming [Benjamin et al., 2001], briefly described
below. [21] Before applying the preprocessing step and the
focusing algorithm, the tumor response must be extracted
3.1. Preprocessing: Equalization from measured data. Measured data contain the tumor
response, as well as additional undesired signals (antenna
[17] Before applying the focusing algorithm we have coupling, reflections from the skin, reflections from
to perform a preprocessing step. This process aims at
equalization of scattered tumor responses for different
antenna pairs. Ideal preprocessing would result in all
received pulses being of the same shape, amplitude and
perfectly time-aligned. In our preprocessing the follow-
ing steps are performed: (1) extraction of the tumor
response from measured data, (2) equalization of tissue
losses, and (3) equalization of radial spread of the
spherical wavefront.
[18] In the work reported herein there will be frequency-
dependence both of the tissue losses and of the radiation
patterns of the antennas, however for simplicity we do
not attempt to correct for these frequency-dependencies
in our processing.
3.2. Modified Delay-and-Sum Algorithm
[19] The modified DAS algorithm uses an additional
weighting factor QF (quality factor), compared to the
standard DAS. QF can be interpreted as a quality factor
of the coherent focusing algorithm.
Figure 10. Antenna array together with the tank.
6 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 11. Comparison of two radar signals (raw measured data) used in background subtraction
technique. Both signals are for the same multistatic path (transmission between antennas 1 and 2, as
shown in Figure 8), with and without the tumor inside breast phantom.

mechanical parts of the array). To subtract all the
unwanted signals, we employ two techniques: either
(1) background subtraction, or (2) rotation subtraction.
[22] In the background subtraction method the tumor
response is extracted using two measurements, with and
without the tumor present in the breast. This method is
effective and useful in evaluating the array imaging
properties, as well as in array calibration, but cannot
possibly be used with real patients.
[23] The second method, rotation subtraction, also
employs two measurements, but with the tumor present
in the breast in both cases. The first measurement is
performed with the array in a given position, then the
array is rotated (in a horizontal plane, around its central
vertical axis) and a second measurement is recorded.
Because the rotation subtraction method does not require
a background measurement, it can potentially be used in
realistic scenarios with breast cancer patients.
[24] To obtain the relevant measured data for back-
ground and rotation subtraction methods, the following
measurement steps were performed:
[25] 1. First, in a given array position (AP1), a back-
ground measurement BAP1 is taken. There is no tumor
present in the breast phantom.
[26] Then, as the array stays in the same position AP1,
we introduce a tumor into the breast phantom at a certain
location and a measurement TAP1 is recorded.
[27] 3. Next, keeping the breast phantom with tumor
fixed we rotate the array to a second position AP2. After
rotation we perform a second measurement of the breast
with tumor (TAP2).
[28] 4. Finally, while the array is in position AP2, the
tumor is removed from the breast phantom and the
second background measurement BAP2 is obtained.
[29] These four data sets provide a basis for obtaining
three focused images of the phantom: two images using
the impractical but ideal background subtraction method
and one using the more practical rotation subtraction
method. The tumor responses TR for respective images
are obtained using the following operations on the
recorded time domain signals (not on the images): (1)
Image 1: TRI1 = TAP1  BAP1; (2) Image 2: TRI2 = TAP2
 TAP1; (3) Image 3: TRI3 =TAP2  BAP2.
4.2. Comparison of Tumor Response Extraction
Methods: Evaluation of Experimental Radar Signals
[30] In this paragraph we compare the tumor response
extraction techniques described above, by investigating
individual multistatic radar signals. Additionally, we
show how we minimize effects of antenna mutual
couplings.
[31] We compare effectiveness of two extraction tech-
niques by looking at respective raw measured multistatic
radar signals. As an example, we chose a pulse trans-
mitted between antennas 1 and 2 (see Figure 8 for
antenna positions), where we can also observe the effect
of mutual coupling between antennas. In Figure 11 we
can see two radar signals, without and with the tumor
inside the breast phantom, used in background subtrac-
tion method. As described in the previous paragraph, by
subtracting these two signals we can easily extract tumor
response from measured signals. This method however is

7 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 12. Comparison of two radar signals (raw measured data) used in rotation subtraction
technique. Both signals are for the same multistatic path (transmission between antennas 1 and 2, as
shown in Figure 8), but at two array positions: AP1 and AP2.

not clinically useful, because the background measure-
ment (without tumor inside a breast) will not be available
with real cancer patient. In the figure we indicated a
different parts of the radar signal. As this is a signal
transmitted between two adjacent antennas in the array, a
first signal received in a direct signal coupled from the
transmitting antenna. Next, we can identify a signal
reflected from the skin and then the tumor response.
As we can see, the tumor response is very small and
hidden within the late-time portion of the received signal.
The tumor response can only be extracted by subtracting
the background signal (shown later in a paper in
Figure 13). Other parts of the signal (antenna coupling

Figure 13. Comparison of extracted tumor response when using background subtraction and
rotation subtraction methods.
8 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 14. Experimental imaging and antenna array evaluation results for 8 mm spherical tumor
located at position P1: x = 10, y = 0, z = 20: (a) 3-D focused image, (b) 2-D image through the
horizontal plane z = 15, (c) channel data at the location of the detected tumor (x = 9, y = 3, z =
15), (d) as Figure 14c but normalized. Images were obtained using background subtraction for
array position AP1. Two-dimensional contour plot shows signal energy on a linear scale,
normalized to maximum in the 3-D volume, values below 0.1 rendered as white.

and skin reflection) are almost identical for cases with
and without the tumor.
[32] Next, in Figure 12 we can see radar signals used in
the second tumor extraction technique: rotation subtrac-
tion. Signals are shown for the same multistatic channel
as used in background subtraction. Both signals from
Figure 12 contain tumor response, they were obtained
when array was in two different positions due to array
rotation (AP1 and AP2, as described in previous para-
graph). Again we can distinguish signals originating
from antenna coupling, skin reflection and the tumor.
[33] In Figure 13 we present signals obtained from
background and rotation subtraction methods. We can
see that the ‘ideal’ background subtraction method (solid
line) provides a good tumor response, with very small
distortions. The antenna coupling and skin reflection
signals were nicely canceled. Significantly more distor-
tions can be seen in the rotation subtraction signal
(dashed line). The tumor response was reasonably recov-
ered from measured data. However, signals at other
ranges also appeared. Especially the skin reflection
signal is visible. It has actually higher magnitude that
the tumor response. The remaining of the sin reflection
signal is due to measurement imperfections during array
rotation. Because in raw measured data the skin reflec-
tion signal is few orders of magnitude stronger than
tumor backscattered response, even small changes in
distance between antennas and the skin layer, or changes

9 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 15. Experimental imaging and antenna array evaluation results for 8 mm spherical tumor
located at position P1: x = 10, y = 0, z = 20: (a) 3-D focused image, (b) 2-D image through the
horizontal plane z = 15, (c and d) channel data at the location of the detected tumor (x = 9, y = 0,
z = 15). Images obtained using background subtraction for array position AP2.

in a skin thickness will result in skin reflection signal at

two array positions not being the same. This can be
observed in Figure 12 on raw signals (before applying
subtraction; only small difference in amplitudes for both
skin reflection signals, hardly visible). It is worth adding,
that the antenna coupling signal was also well canceled
using rotation subtraction technique.
[34] The problem of remaining signals when using
rotation subtraction although clearly visible on individual
multistatic radar signals, is not very critical overall.
These clutter signals will usually add incoherently during
focusing processing. But the tumor response will be
combined coherently, as presented in a next section. In
conclusion, we can clearly see the difference between
ideal (not practically useful) background subtraction and
the practically useful rotation subtraction method.
4.3. Comparison of Tumor Response Extraction
Methods: Experimental Imaging Results
[35] In this section we compare the techniques pre-
sented above for tumor response extraction and their
impact on imaging quality. Using the system described in
section 2, we performed a number of measurements of
tumors in different locations within the breast phantom.
[36] We present an example of a 8 mm (diameter)
spherical tumor phantom at two different locations in the
breast phantom. For each location, we compared the
three focused images obtained using the tumor response
extraction methods described above. Additionally, we
evaluated the quality of coherent radar operation by
examining the radar signals obtained after focusing at
the focal location where the tumor was detected.

10 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 16. Experimental imaging and antenna array evaluation results for 8 mm spherical tumor
located at position P1: x = 10, y = 0, z = 20: (a) 3-D focused image, (b) 2-D image through the
horizontal plane z = 15, (c) channel data at the location of the detected tumor (x = 9, y = 3, z =
21), (d) as Figure 16c but normalized. Images obtained using rotation subtraction for array
positions AP1 and AP2.

4.3.1. Results for Tumor Location P1: x = 10, y = 0,
z = 220 mm
[37] Below we present experimental tumor detection
results for a 8 mm spherical tumor phantom located in
the breast at a position P1: x = 10, y = 0, z = 20 (all
positions quoted in mm). Following the measurement
procedure described in section 4.1, three focused images
of the detected tumor were created, two using background
subtraction method and one using rotation subtraction.
[38] In Figure 14 we present results for the background
subtraction method with an array in position AP1 (as
described in section 4.1). Figure 14a shows a three-
dimensional (3-D) focused energy image (3 dB
energy contour), with the tumor detected at position:
x = 9, y = 3, z = 15. The skin is also shown in the
image (in gray). There is a slight shift in the location of
the detected tumor, but otherwise the image is clear and
of good quality (there is no clutter present in the image).
The small spatial offset is most likely due to nonideally
coherent summation of received pulse (which differ
slightly in shape and duration).
[39] When looking at the horizontal plane where tumor
was detected (z = 15), shown in Figure 14b, we can
easily identify the tumor. Moreover, there is no visible
clutter in this 2-D image, demonstrating the good quality
of our imaging process. Two-dimensional contour plots
show signal energy on a linear scale, normalized to
maximum in the 3-D volume, values below 0.1 rendered
as white.

11 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 17. Experimental imaging and antenna array evaluation results for 8 mm spherical tumor
located at position P2: x = 0, y = 30, z = 20: (a) 3-D focused image, (b) 2-D image through
the horizontal plane z = 15, (c) channel data at the location of the detected tumor (x = 6, y = 24,
z = 12), (d) as Figure 17c but normalized. Images obtained using background subtraction for
array position AP1.

[40] To further evaluate the quality of our results, we
investigated the coherence quality of our radar system.
As described in section 3.2, using a synthetic postrecep-
tion focusing algorithm, by proper time-shift and align-
ment of received signals, coherent operation of the radar
should be achieved. Therefore, at the focal location
where tumor is located, after ideal focusing and prepro-
cessing of all radar channels the received pulses should
have the same amplitude and be time-aligned. In reality
we cannot expect all pulses to be the same, because we
do not account for frequency-dependent factors (e.g.
antenna characteristics, losses). Also, the tumor scatter-
ing is angle-dependent, resulting in slightly different
pulse shapes received by different antennas. However,
we do expect the pulses to be well time-aligned.
[41] In Figures 14c and 14d we can see the array
channel data at the focal point where the tumor was
detected (x = 9, y = 3, z = 15). Figure 14c shows the
signal with absolute amplitude values, to investigate
time-alignment but also the amplitude spread of the
signals after preprocessing. The figure shows about
800 time samples (x axis) of the received channel data
(with 16 antennas we record 120 channels, each dis-
played as a line parallel to the x axis). The black lines on
the figure represent the extent of the integration window
t used in our modified DAS algorithm. We can observe
that pulses have a similar amplitude across all channels,
demonstrating their good equalization. In Figure 14d the
same data are presented but with the amplitudes normal-
ized to the maximum in each channel, we can see more

12 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 18. Experimental imaging and antenna array evaluation results for 8 mm spherical tumor
located at position P2: x = 0, y = 30, z = 20: (a) 3-D focused image, (b) 2-D image through the
horizontal plane z = 15, (c) channel data at the location of the detected tumor (x = 3, y = 24,
z = 12), (d) as Figure 18c but normalized. Images obtained using background subtraction for
array position AP2.

easily the good time-alignment of the received pulses.
The slight differences in time-shifts at individual chan-
nels are most likely due to the effects discussed above.
[42] In Figure 15 we present imaging results and
channel data for the second background measurement,
after the array was rotated by 10 degrees to position AP2.
We can observe in the focused images (3-D in Figure 15a
and 2-D in Figure 15b), that the tumor phantom is again
successfully detected. However, due to the array rotation
it is now seen at a slightly different location (x = 9, y = 0,
z = 15) by the array. The channel data presented in
Figures 15c and 15d show again that good coherent radar
operation is achieved.
[43] Finally, in Figure 16, results are shown for the case
when rotation subtraction method was used to de-embed
the tumor response from raw measured data. Focused
energy images (Figures 16a and 16b for 3-D and 2-D
results, respectively) show that although tumor was again
detected without any problems, detection quality is
slightly degraded. Beside the tumor response, there is
also some clutter present in images. The reason for this
can be seen by looking at channel data in Figures 16c
and 16d. Here the received channel data have a much
larger amplitude spread, compared with results for back-
ground subtraction. Moreover, the coherence of pulses is
also not as good.
[44] The degraded performance can be explained by
differences in time-shifts for different array channels, due
to the difference in the physical displacement of each
antenna during rotation: when rotating the array around

13 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING RS6S06

Figure 19. Experimental imaging and antenna array evaluation results for 8 mm spherical tumor
located at position P2: x = 0, y = 30, z = 20: (a) 3-D focused image, (b) 2-D image through the
horizontal plane z = 15, (c) channel data at the location of the detected tumor (x = 3, y = 27,
z = 12), (d) as Figure 19c but normalized. Images obtained using rotation subtraction for
array positions AP1 and AP2.

its center, antennas close to the center of rotation
experience smaller displacement than antennas located
further away. Nevertheless, this rotation subtraction still
provides performance sufficient to detect small tumors in
the phantom.
4.3.2. Results for Tumor Location P2: x = 0, y = 30,
z = 220 mm
[45] We present here results similar to those shown in
the previous subsection, but for a tumor located at a
different position: P2: x = 0, y = 30, z = 20. An 8 mm
spherical tumor was again used in the measurements.
[46] In Figures 17 and 18 we present results for two
background subtraction measurements, with the array in
position AP1 and AP2. The array was rotated by 10 degrees,
as before. By looking at focused images in Figures 17a
and 17b for position AP1, and Figures 18a and 18b for
position AP2, we can observe that tumor was in both
cases easily detected. However, the difference in the
location of the detected tumor is larger than for the first
tumor location, as would be expected (due to larger
physical displacement for the same angle of rotation).
The tumor was detected at position: x = 6, y = 24, z = 12
for AP1, and position: x = 3, y = 24, z = 12 for AP2.
Focused images are clear with no clutter visible. This
good performance is again confirmed by the channel data
(Figures 17c and 17d and Figures 18c and 18d) at the
focal points where the tumor was detected: signals are
relatively well-aligned and with comparable amplitudes.
[47] When using rotation subtraction, the tumor was
also detected, as seen in the focused images Figures 19a

14 of 15
RS6S06 KLEMM ET AL.: BREAST CANCER IMAGING
and 19b. Although a small amount of clutter exists in
these images, their overall quality is more than satisfac-
tory. The channel data in Figures 19c and 19d show
again that the signals vary more in amplitude after
rotation subtraction, compared to the ideal background
subtraction, and they are also less aligned. But the good
quality of focused images shows that this effect of
smaller coherence is equally translated onto the entire
focusing domain. This is an encouraging conclusion of
our evaluations, since possibly only the rotation subtrac-
tion method could be used in realistic breast cancer
detection scenarios.
5. Conclusions and Future Work
[48] In this contribution we presented a microwave
system for breast cancer detection, employing a confor-
mal antenna array. The antenna elements populate the
inside of a section of a hemisphere, this being a suitable
geometry for clinical application. A 3-D physical breast
phantom was also presented including a geometrically
and electrically realistic skin (this being the dominant
source of clutter).
[49] The new investigations presented herein have
focused on the evaluation of two methods of de-
embedding tumor response from raw measured data.
We compared quality of detection as well as coherence
quality of these methods. Results show that both de-
embedding techniques provide good quality images and
there is no difficulty in detecting 8 mm spherical tumor at
different locations within the breast phantom. However
using a rotational subtraction the coherent radar opera-
tion is degraded, compared to the ideal (but unachiev-
able) case of background subtraction.
[50] This effect is due to the different physical dis-
placement of each antennas after array rotation arising
from the different antenna locations in the array. We
believe that this effect can be lessened to a certain degree
and this is the subject of ongoing research.
References
Abas, S., X. Meilian, N. Sima, T. Parimala, and S. Pistorius
(2007), Efficient microwave breast imaging technique using
parallel finite difference time domain and parallel genetic
algorithms, IEEE Antennas Propag. Int. Symp., 2176 – 2179.
Benjamin, R. (1996), Synthetic, post-reception focusing in
near-field radar, paper presented at EUREL International
Conference, The Detection of Abandoned Land Mines: A
Humanitarian Imperative Seeking a Technical Solution, 7 – 9
Oct.
Benjamin, R., I. J. Craddock, G. S. Hilton, S. Litobarski,
E. McCutcheon, R. Nilavalan, and G. N. Crisp (2001), Micro-
wave detection of buried mines using non-contact, synthetic
near-field focusing, IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig., 148(4),
233 – 240.
15 of 15
RS6S06
Bialkowski, M. E., and C. K. Wee (2007), Investigations into an
uwb microwave radar system for breast cancer detection,
IEEE Antennas Propag. Int. Symp., 2160 – 2163.
Craddock, I. J., R. Nilavalan, J. Leendertz, A. Preece, and
R. Benjamin (2005), Experimental investigation of real aper-
ture synthetically organised radar for breast cancer detection,
IEEE Antennas Propag. Soc. Int. Symp., 1B, 179 – 182.
Fear, E. C. (2005), Microwave imaging of the breast, Technol.
Cancer Res. Treatment, 4, 69 – 82.
Fear, E. C., P. M. Meaney, and M. A. Stuchly (2003), Micro-
waves for breast cancer detection?, IEEE Potentials, 22(1),
12 – 18.
Hagness, S. C., A. Taflove, and J. E. Bridges (1998), Two-
dimensional FDTD analysis of a pulsed microwave confocal
system for breast cancer detection: Fixed-focus and antenna-
array sensors, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 45(12), 1470 –
1479.
Hines, M. E., and H. E. Stinehelfer (1974), Time-domain oscillo-
graphic microwave network analysis using frequency-domain
data, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 22, 276 – 282.
Klemm, M., I. J. Craddock, J. A. Leendertz, A. Preece, and
R. Benjamin (2008), Improved delay-and-sum beamforming
algorithm for breast cancer detection, Int. J. Antennas Pro-
pag., 761402, doi:10.1155/2008/761402.
Kosmas, P., C. M. Rappaport, and E. Bishop (2004), Modeling
with the FDTD method for microwave breast cancer detec-
tion, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 52(8), Part 2,
1890 – 1897.
Lazebnik, M., et al. (2007), A large-scale study of the ultrawi-
deband microwave dielectric properties of normal breast tis-
sue obtained from reduction surgeries, Phys. Med. Biol., 52,
2637 – 2656.
Leendertz, J., A. Preece, R. Nilavalan, I. J. Craddock, and
R. Benjamin (2003), A liquid phantom medium for micro-
wave breast imaging, paper presented at 6th International
Congress of the European Bioelectromagnetics Association,
Budapest, Hungary, Nov.
Nilavalan, R., I. J. Craddock, A. Preece, J. Leendertz, and
R. Benjamin (2007), Wideband microstrip patch antenna
design for breast cancer tumour detection, IET Microwaves
Antennas Propag., 1(2), 277 – 281.
Sill, J. M., and E. C. Fear (2005), Tissue sensing adaptive radar
for breast cancer detection - Experimental investigation of
simple tumor models, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech.,
53(11), 3312 – 3319.

R. Benjamin, 13 Bellhouse Walk, Kingsweston, Bristol, UK.
I. J. Craddock, M. Klemm, J. Leendertz, and A. Preece,
Centre for Communications Research, Department of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering, University of Bristol, Merchant
Venturers Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UB, UK.
(m.klemm@bristol.ac.uk)