Feasibility of In Vivo Metal Artifact Reduction in Contrast-Enhanced Dedicated Spiral Breast Computed Tomography.
breast CT
breast imaging
computed tomography
metal artifact reduction
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Sep 2023
26 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
22
08
2023
revised:
19
09
2023
accepted:
25
09
2023
medline:
14
10
2023
pubmed:
14
10
2023
entrez:
14
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Radiopaque breast markers cause artifacts in dedicated spiral breast-computed tomography (SBCT). This study investigates the extent of artifacts in different marker types and the feasibility of reducing artifacts through a metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm. The pilot study included 18 women who underwent contrast-enhanced SBCT. In total, 20 markers of 4 different types were analyzed for artifacts. The extent of artifacts with and without MAR was measured via the consensus of two readers. Image noise was quantitatively evaluated, and the effect of MAR on the detectability of breast lesions was evaluated on a 3-point Likert scale. Breast markers caused significant artifacts that impaired image quality and the detectability of lesions. MAR decreased artifact size in all analyzed cases, even in cases with multiple markers in a single slice. The median length of in-plain artifacts significantly decreased from 31 mm (range 11-51 mm) in uncorrected to 2 mm (range 1-5 mm) in corrected images ( MAR is feasible in SBCT and improves the image quality and detectability of lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Radiopaque breast markers cause artifacts in dedicated spiral breast-computed tomography (SBCT). This study investigates the extent of artifacts in different marker types and the feasibility of reducing artifacts through a metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm.
METHODS
METHODS
The pilot study included 18 women who underwent contrast-enhanced SBCT. In total, 20 markers of 4 different types were analyzed for artifacts. The extent of artifacts with and without MAR was measured via the consensus of two readers. Image noise was quantitatively evaluated, and the effect of MAR on the detectability of breast lesions was evaluated on a 3-point Likert scale.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Breast markers caused significant artifacts that impaired image quality and the detectability of lesions. MAR decreased artifact size in all analyzed cases, even in cases with multiple markers in a single slice. The median length of in-plain artifacts significantly decreased from 31 mm (range 11-51 mm) in uncorrected to 2 mm (range 1-5 mm) in corrected images (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
MAR is feasible in SBCT and improves the image quality and detectability of lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37835805
pii: diagnostics13193062
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13193062
pmc: PMC10572310
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Acad Radiol. 2011 Oct;18(10):1252-7
pubmed: 21893293
Eur J Radiol. 2021 Dec;145:110038
pubmed: 34818609
Eur Radiol. 2021 Jun;31(6):3693-3702
pubmed: 33263161
Invest Radiol. 2020 Feb;55(2):68-72
pubmed: 31592797
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Apr;31(4):634-9
pubmed: 19942707
Transl Oncol. 2017 Aug;10(4):599-603
pubmed: 28666188
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Aug 25;13(17):
pubmed: 34503097
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2022 Jan 27;7(5):100848
pubmed: 36148372
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):372-6
pubmed: 17242244
Eur Radiol. 2017 Mar;27(3):1081-1086
pubmed: 27306559
Invest Radiol. 2022 Oct 1;57(10):704-709
pubmed: 35220384
Eur Radiol. 2011 Jul;21(7):1424-9
pubmed: 21249370
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2021 Apr 20;6(4):100701
pubmed: 34409206
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Jul;152:4-17
pubmed: 34062485
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Oct;173(4):911-7
pubmed: 10511147
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Feb;28(2):914-919
pubmed: 32661849
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Mar;41(3):248-53
pubmed: 22241878
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Clin Neuroradiol. 2019 Jun;29(2):277-284
pubmed: 29147735
Acad Radiol. 2017 Jul;24(7):908-915
pubmed: 28130048
Med Phys. 2023 Apr;50(4):2417-2428
pubmed: 36622370
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 May 09;11(5):
pubmed: 34065039
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 06;16(24):
pubmed: 31817811
Skeletal Radiol. 2009 Aug;38(8):797-802
pubmed: 19142632
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Apr;218(4):716-727
pubmed: 34755521
Breast J. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):223-31
pubmed: 15125749
Med Phys. 2010 Oct;37(10):5482-93
pubmed: 21089784
Eur J Radiol. 2023 Jan;158:110632
pubmed: 36463702
Radiographics. 2018 Mar-Apr;38(2):450-461
pubmed: 29528826
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Feb 08;13(4):
pubmed: 36832109
Acad Radiol. 2021 Jan;28(1):77-84
pubmed: 32008930
J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Jan;29(1):e78-e80
pubmed: 29194265
Clin Imaging. 2018 Nov - Dec;52:123-136
pubmed: 30059952
Eur Radiol. 2013 Aug;23(8):2137-45
pubmed: 23519437
Br J Radiol. 2015 Aug;88(1052):20140473
pubmed: 26110201
Eur J Radiol. 2022 Dec;157:110605
pubmed: 36403565
Radiology. 1997 Nov;205(2):407-15
pubmed: 9356621
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Oct;36(10):1988-93
pubmed: 26272971