Analysis of dual-energy mammography subtraction technique for the dose and image quality evaluation using 3D-printed breast phantom.
Doses
Dual-energy
Image quality
Mammography
Journal
Physical and engineering sciences in medicine
ISSN: 2662-4737
Titre abrégé: Phys Eng Sci Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101760671
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
14
11
2022
accepted:
04
09
2023
medline:
11
12
2023
pubmed:
18
9
2023
entrez:
18
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to quantitatively assess the radiation dose using XR-QA2 and the image quality of the dual-energy subtraction mammography technique on an in-house phantom. The analysis was carried out to investigate the effect of targets/filters on dose value and image quality using an in-house phantom made of PLA + as an object representing compressed breasts. All irradiation parameters were performed in the craniocaudal position with manual mode. Mean glandular dose (MGD) was recorded, followed by the calculation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and modulation transfer function (MTF) for image quality assessment parameters. The results showed that the image quality was accepted at dose levels within the IAEA and BAPETEN tolerance limit for 60 mm equivalent compressed breast using dual-energy mammography. Furthermore, the target/filter (W/Rh) reduced the dose by 1.03 mGy compared to the Mo/Mo and Mo/Rh with an enhancement in image quality. This indicated that the target/filter (W/Rh) combination was optimal due to the image quality improvement obtained with lower MGD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37721685
doi: 10.1007/s13246-023-01330-8
pii: 10.1007/s13246-023-01330-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1693-1701Informations de copyright
© 2023. Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine.
Références
Fusco R, Raiano N, Raiano C, Maio F, Vallone P, MattaceRaso M et al (2020) Evaluation of average glandular dose and investigation of the relationship with compressed breast thickness in dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur J Radiol 126:108912
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108912
pubmed: 32151787
Sorin V, Sklair-levy M (2019) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM ) for breast cancer screening. Quant Imaging Med Surg 9(13):1914–1917. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims.2019.10.13
doi: 10.21037/qims.2019.10.13
pubmed: 31867243
pmcid: 6902143
Woodard S, Murray A (2022) Contrast-enhanced mammography: reviewing the past and looking to the future. Semin Roentgenol 57(2):126–133. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2021.12.001
doi: 10.1053/j.ro.2021.12.001
pubmed: 35523525
Sudhir R, Koppula V, Mandava A, Kamala S, Potlapalli A (2021) Technique and clinical applications of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in breast cancer evaluation: a pictorial essay. Diagn Interv Radiol 27(1):28–36. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2020.19573
doi: 10.5152/dir.2020.19573
pubmed: 33252334
Perry H, Phillips J, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ, Fein-Zachary VJ, Karimova EJ et al (2019) Contrast-enhanced mammography: a systematic guide to interpretation and reporting. Am J Roentgenol 212(1):222–231. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19265
doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.19265
Sogani J, Mango VL, Keating D, Sung JS, Jochelson MS (2021) Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future. Clin Imaging 69:269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.09.003
doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.09.003
pubmed: 33032103
Fusco R, Vallone P, Filice S, Granata V, Petrosino T, Rubulotta MR et al (2019) Radiomic features analysis by digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography to detect malignant breast lesions. Biomed Signal Process Control 53:101568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2019.101568
doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2019.101568
Hsu J (2021) Silver sulfide nanoparticles for breast cancer imaging with dual energy mammography and other modalities silver sulfide nanoparticles for breast cancer imaging with dual energy. Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations, 3885: University of Pennsylvania
Mahmoud OM, Shehata RMA, El-Sharkawy MAM, Kamel HM (2022) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography versus digital mammography in the discrimination between benign and malignant breast lesions. Egypt J Hosp Med. 88(1):3727–3732. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhm.2022.251655
doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2022.251655
Sumkin JH, Berg WA, Carter GJ, Bandos AI, Chough DM, Ganott MA et al (2019) Diagnostic performance of mri, molecular breast imaging, and contrast-enhanced mammography in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Radiology 293(3):531–540. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190887
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190887
pubmed: 31660801
Lu Z, Hao C, Pan Y, Mao N, Wang X, Yin X (2020) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus ultrasonography: diagnostic performance in symptomatic patients with dense breasts. Korean J Radiol 21(4):442–449. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0393
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0393
pubmed: 32193892
pmcid: 7082654
Gennaro G, Cozzi A, Schiaffino S, Sardanelli F, Caumo F (2022) Radiation dose of contrast-enhanced mammography: a two-center prospective comparison. Cancers (Basel). 14(7):1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071774
doi: 10.3390/cancers14071774
Asbeutah AM, Brindhaban A, AlMajran AA, Asbeutah SA (2020) The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: a phantom study. Radiography 26(3):e129–e133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.12.004
doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.12.004
pubmed: 32052759
IAEA (2011) Quality assurance programme for digital mammography, IAEA Human Health Series No 17. IAEA, Vienna
Rauf RA, Astuty SD, Dewang S, Mulyadin M (2020) Pengaruh faktor eksposi dan tebal fantom terhadap mean glandular dose (MGD) Pada Pesawat Sinar-X Mammografi. Berkala fisika 23(3).
Celina FM, Gani MRA, Endarko E (2023) Evaluation of in-house phantoms for mammography accreditation with various 3D printer filaments. J Phys: Conf Ser 2498(1):012014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2498/1/012014
doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2498/1/012014
Ravaglia V, Farnedi S, Guerra G, Scrittori N, Venturi G, eds (2022) A homemade phantom for image quality evaluation in contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Proc SPIE
Tomic N, Quintero C, Whiting BR, Aldelaijan S, Bekerat H, Liang L et al (2014) Characterization of calibration curves and energy dependence GafChromic
doi: 10.1118/1.4876295
pubmed: 24877832
Suleiman ME, Brennan PC, McEntee MF (2017) Mean glandular dose in digital mammography: a dose calculation method comparison. J Med Imaging 4(1):013502. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.4.1.013502
doi: 10.1117/1.jmi.4.1.013502
Alkhalifah K, Asbeutah A, Brindhaban A (2020) Image quality and radiation dose for fibrofatty breast using target/filter combinations in two digital mammography systems. J Clin Imaging Sci 10(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_30_2020
doi: 10.25259/JCIS_30_2020
Park C, Lee Y (2022) Application feasibility of median modified Wiener filter (MMWF) algorithm for customized breast ACR phantom images using 3D printing technology in mammography. Nucl Instr Methods Phys Res Sect A 1031:166570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2022.166570
doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2022.166570
Gaona E, Rivera T, Molina-Frechero N, Franco JG (2018) Exploratory survey of initial image quality in new digital mammography units prior to use in patients in Mexico. Appl Radiat Isot 141:266–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2018.07.013
doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2018.07.013
pubmed: 30049552
Sharma R, Sharma SD, Sarkar PS, Datta D (2018) Imaging and dosimetric study on direct flat-panel detector-based digital mammography system. J Med Phys 43(4):255–263. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_64_18
doi: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_64_18
pubmed: 30636851
pmcid: 6299749
Rudnicki W, Heinze S, Popiela T, Kojs Z, Luczynska E (2020) Quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement on contrast enhancement spectral mammography (CESM) and comparison with qualitative assessment. Anticancer Res 40(5):2925–2932. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14270
doi: 10.21873/anticanres.14270
pubmed: 32366444
Alukic E, Bravhar P, Mekis N (2021) Does the use of self-compression in mammography affect compression force, breast thickness, and mean glandular dose? Eur J Radiol 139:109694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109694
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109694
pubmed: 33839429
Luzhbin D, Chang C-C, Chang S-J, Wu J (2021) Dual-energy tissue cancellation in mammography for improved detection of microcalcifications and neoplasms: a phantom study. Nucl Instr Methods Phys Res Sect A 1025:166062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2021.166062
doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2021.166062
IAEA (2014) Diagnostic radiology physics, non-serial publications. IAEA, Vienna
LuhGede PS, Ratini NN, Iffah M (2020) Effect of X-ray tube voltage variation on signal to noise ratio (SNR) by application of anode heel effect using Stepwedge. Buletin Fisika. 22(1):20–28. https://doi.org/10.24843/BF.2021.v22.i01.p04
doi: 10.24843/BF.2021.v22.i01.p04
Song C-H, Yeom H-G, Kim J-E, Huh K-H, Yi W-J, Heo M-S et al (2022) Correlation analysis between radiation exposure and the image quality of cone-beam computed tomography in the dental clinical environment. Imaging Sci Dentistry 52(3):283–288. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20220129
doi: 10.5624/isd.20220129
Jl P, Links JM (2015) Medical imaging signals and systems, 2nd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 519
Koukou V, Martini N, Fountos G, Michail C, Sotiropoulou P, Bakas A et al (2017) Dual energy subtraction method for breast calcification imaging. Nucl Instr Methods Phys Res Sect A 848:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016.12.034
doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2016.12.034
Ghammraoui B, Makeev A, Zidan A, Alayoubi A, Glick SJ (2019) Classification of breast microcalcifications using dual-energy mammography. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 6(1):13502. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.6.1.013502
doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.6.1.013502
Susanti F, Anam C, Setiawati E (2014) Penentuan entrance skin exposure (ESE) pada pesawat mammografi mammomat 1000 dengan filter molybdenum (Mo) dan rhodium (Rh). Jurnal Sains Matematika 22(1):20–24
Gholamkar L, Mowlavi AA, Sadeghi M, Athari M (2016) Assessment of mean glandular dose in mammography system with different anode-filter combinations using MCNP code. Iran J Radiol 13(4):e36484. https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.36484
doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.36484
pubmed: 27895876
pmcid: 5117115
Biegała M, Jakubowska T, Markowska K (2015) Effect of anode/filter combination on average glandular dose in mammography. J Med Phys 40(1):45–61. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.152251
doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.152251
pubmed: 26150687
pmcid: 4471644
Teoh KC, Manan HA, Mohd Norsuddin N, Rizuana IH (2021) Comparison of mean glandular dose between full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Healthcare (Basel). 9(12):1758. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121758
doi: 10.3390/healthcare9121758
pubmed: 34946484
pmcid: 8700789
Gennaro G, Bernardi D, Houssami N (2018) Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis. Eur Radiol 28(2):573–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5024-4
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5024-4
pubmed: 28819862