» Articles » PMID: 26373754

Contrast-enhanced Dual Energy Mammography with a Novel Anode/filter Combination and Artifact Reduction: a Feasibility Study

Overview
Journal Eur Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2015 Sep 17
PMID 26373754
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To demonstrate the feasibility of contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography (CEDEM) using titanium (Ti) filtering at 49 kVp for high-energy images and a novel artefact reducing image-subtraction post-processing algorithm.

Methods: Fifteen patients with suspicious findings (ACR BI-RADS 4 and 5) detected with digital mammography (MG) that required biopsy were included. CEDEM examinations were performed on a modified prototype machine. Acquired HE and low-energy raw data images were registered non-rigidly to compensate for possible subtle tissue motion. Subtracted CEDEM images were generated via weighted subtraction, using a fully automatic, locally adjusted tissue thickness-dependent subtraction factor to avoid over-subtraction at the breast border. Two observers evaluated the MG and CEDEM images according to ACR BI-RADS in two reading sessions. Results were correlated with histopathology.

Results: Seven patients with benign and eight with malignant findings were included. All malignant lesions showed a strong contrast enhancement. BI-RADS assessment was altered in 66.6 % through the addition of CEDEM, resulting in increased overall accuracy. With CEDEM, additional lesions were depicted and false-positive rate was reduced compared to MG.

Conclusions: CEDEM using Ti filtering with 49 kVp for HE exposures is feasible in a clinical setting. The proposed image-processing algorithm has the potential to reduce artefacts and improve CEDEM images.

Key Points: • CEDEM with a titanium filter is feasible in a clinical setting. • Breast thickness-dependent image subtraction has the potential to improve CEDEM images. • The proposed image-processing algorithm reduces artefacts.

Citing Articles

3D Printing Materials Mimicking Human Tissues after Uptake of Iodinated Contrast Agents for Anthropomorphic Radiology Phantoms.

Homolka P, Breyer L, Semturs F Biomimetics (Basel). 2024; 9(10).

PMID: 39451811 PMC: 11504517. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics9100606.


[Use of contrast-enhanced mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer].

Fischer U, Diekmann F, Helbich T, Preibsch H, Pusken M, Wenkel E Radiologie (Heidelb). 2023; 63(12):916-924.

PMID: 37889284 PMC: 10692004. DOI: 10.1007/s00117-023-01222-8.


Background enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): are there qualitative and quantitative differences between imaging systems?.

Wessling D, Mannlin S, Schwarz R, Hagen F, Brendlin A, Olthof S Eur Radiol. 2022; 33(4):2945-2953.

PMID: 36474057 PMC: 10017655. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09238-9.


Artifact reduction in contrast-enhanced mammography.

Gennaro G, Baldan E, Bezzon E, Caumo F Insights Imaging. 2022; 13(1):90.

PMID: 35554734 PMC: 9098782. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01211-w.


Identifying factors that may influence the classification performance of radiomics models using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images.

Sun Y, Wang S, Liu Z, You C, Li R, Mao N Cancer Imaging. 2022; 22(1):22.

PMID: 35550658 PMC: 9101829. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-022-00460-8.


References
1.
Rueckert D, Sonoda L, Hayes C, Hill D, Leach M, Hawkes D . Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999; 18(8):712-21. DOI: 10.1109/42.796284. View

2.
Diekmann F, Sommer A, Lawaczeck R, Diekmann S, Pietsch H, Speck U . Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents. Invest Radiol. 2007; 42(5):319-25. DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000258682.99546.9f. View

3.
Pollard B, Samei E, Chawla A, Baker J, Ghate S, Kim C . The influence of increased ambient lighting on mass detection in mammograms. Acad Radiol. 2009; 16(3):299-304. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.08.017. View

4.
Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T, Hoheisel M . X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. Med Phys. 2006; 33(11):4337-49. DOI: 10.1118/1.2351951. View

5.
Wallis M, Tardivon A, Tarvidon A, Helbich T, Schreer I . Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures. Eur Radiol. 2006; 17(2):581-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0408-x. View