Performance of dual-energy subtraction in contrast-enhanced mammography for three different manufacturers: a phantom study.
Contrast media
Mammography
Phantoms (imaging)
Radiation dosage
Radiographic image enhancement
Journal
European radiology experimental
ISSN: 2509-9280
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol Exp
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Oct 2024
14 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
29
04
2024
accepted:
19
09
2024
medline:
14
10
2024
pubmed:
14
10
2024
entrez:
14
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dual-energy subtraction (DES) imaging is critical in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), as the recombination of low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) images produces contrast enhancement while reducing anatomical noise. The study's purpose was to compare the performance of the DES algorithm among three different CEM systems using a commercial phantom. A CIRS Model 022 phantom, designed for CEM, was acquired using all available automatic exposure modes (AECs) with three CEM systems from three different manufacturers (CEM1, CEM2, and CEM3). Three studies were acquired for each system/AEC mode to measure both radiation dose and image quality metrics, including estimation of measurement error. The mean glandular dose (MGD) calculated over the three acquisitions was used as the dosimetry index, while contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was obtained from LE and HE images and DES images and used as an image quality metric. On average, the CNR of LE images of CEM1 was 2.3 times higher than that of CEM2 and 2.7 times higher than that of CEM3. For HE images, the CNR of CEM1 was 2.7 and 3.5 times higher than that of CEM2 and CEM3, respectively. The CNR remained predominantly higher for CEM1 even when measured from DES images, followed by CEM2 and then CEM3. CEM1 delivered the lowest MGD (2.34 ± 0.03 mGy), followed by CEM3 (2.53 ± 0.02 mGy) in default AEC mode, and CEM2 (3.50 ± 0.05 mGy). The doses of CEM2 and CEM3 increased by 49.6% and 8.0% compared with CEM1, respectively. One system outperformed others in DES algorithms, providing higher CNR at lower doses. This phantom study highlighted the variability in performance among the DES algorithms used by different CEM systems, showing that these differences can be translated in terms of variations in contrast enhancement and radiation dose. DES images, obtained by recombining LE and HE images, have a major role in CEM. Differences in radiation dose among CEM systems were between 8.0% and 49.6%. One DES algorithm achieved superior technical performance, providing higher CNR values at a lower radiation dose.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dual-energy subtraction (DES) imaging is critical in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), as the recombination of low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) images produces contrast enhancement while reducing anatomical noise. The study's purpose was to compare the performance of the DES algorithm among three different CEM systems using a commercial phantom.
METHODS
METHODS
A CIRS Model 022 phantom, designed for CEM, was acquired using all available automatic exposure modes (AECs) with three CEM systems from three different manufacturers (CEM1, CEM2, and CEM3). Three studies were acquired for each system/AEC mode to measure both radiation dose and image quality metrics, including estimation of measurement error. The mean glandular dose (MGD) calculated over the three acquisitions was used as the dosimetry index, while contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was obtained from LE and HE images and DES images and used as an image quality metric.
RESULTS
RESULTS
On average, the CNR of LE images of CEM1 was 2.3 times higher than that of CEM2 and 2.7 times higher than that of CEM3. For HE images, the CNR of CEM1 was 2.7 and 3.5 times higher than that of CEM2 and CEM3, respectively. The CNR remained predominantly higher for CEM1 even when measured from DES images, followed by CEM2 and then CEM3. CEM1 delivered the lowest MGD (2.34 ± 0.03 mGy), followed by CEM3 (2.53 ± 0.02 mGy) in default AEC mode, and CEM2 (3.50 ± 0.05 mGy). The doses of CEM2 and CEM3 increased by 49.6% and 8.0% compared with CEM1, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
One system outperformed others in DES algorithms, providing higher CNR at lower doses.
RELEVANCE STATEMENT
CONCLUSIONS
This phantom study highlighted the variability in performance among the DES algorithms used by different CEM systems, showing that these differences can be translated in terms of variations in contrast enhancement and radiation dose.
KEY POINTS
CONCLUSIONS
DES images, obtained by recombining LE and HE images, have a major role in CEM. Differences in radiation dose among CEM systems were between 8.0% and 49.6%. One DES algorithm achieved superior technical performance, providing higher CNR values at a lower radiation dose.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39400659
doi: 10.1186/s41747-024-00516-3
pii: 10.1186/s41747-024-00516-3
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
113Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sensakovic WF, Carnahan MB, Czaplicki CD et al (2021) Contrast-enhanced mammography: How does it work? Radiographics 41:829–839. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2021200167
doi: 10.1148/rg.2021200167
pubmed: 33835871
Neeter LMFH, Raat HPJF, Alcantara R et al (2021) Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know. BJR Open 3:20210034. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20210034
doi: 10.1259/bjro.20210034
pubmed: 34877457
pmcid: 8611680
Åhsberg K, Gardfjell A, Nimeus E et al (2021) The PROCEM study protocol: added value of preoperative contrast-enhanced mammography in staging of malignant breast lesions—a prospective randomized multicenter study. BMC Cancer 21:1115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08832-2
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08832-2
pubmed: 34663236
pmcid: 8521511
Lobbes MBI, Neeter LMFH, Raat F et al (2023) The performance of contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in local preoperative staging of invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 164:110881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110881
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110881
pubmed: 37201248
Pötsch N, Vatteroni G, Clauser P et al (2022) Contrast-enhanced mammography versus contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 305:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.212530
doi: 10.1148/radiol.212530
pubmed: 36154284
Iotti V, Ravaioli S, Vacondio R et al (2017) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res 19:106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0899-1
doi: 10.1186/s13058-017-0899-1
pubmed: 28893303
pmcid: 5594558
Kaiyin M, Lingling T, Leilei T et al (2023) Head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 202:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07034-7
doi: 10.1007/s10549-023-07034-7
pubmed: 37615793
Lalji UC, Houben IPL, Prevos R et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol 26:4371–4379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4336-0
doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4336-0
pubmed: 27097789
pmcid: 5101272
Cozzi A, Schiaffino S, Fanizza M et al (2022) Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study. Eur Radiol 32:7388–7399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3
pubmed: 35648209
pmcid: 9668944
Skaane P (2022) Contrast-enhanced mammography for screening recalls: A problem-solving assessment tool ready for use? Eur Radiol 32:7386–7387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09094-7
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-09094-7
pubmed: 36100775
Coffey K, Jochelson MS (2022) Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening. Eur J Radiol 156:110513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110513
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110513
pubmed: 36108478
pmcid: 10680079
Lu Z, Hao C, Pan Y et al (2020) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus ultrasonography: diagnostic performance in symptomatic patients with dense nreasts. Korean J Radiol 21:442–449. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0393
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0393
pubmed: 32193892
pmcid: 7082654
Kornecki A (2022) Current status of contrast-enhanced mammography: a comprehensive review. Can Assoc Radiol J 73:141–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371211029047
doi: 10.1177/08465371211029047
pubmed: 34492211
Gennaro G, Baldan E, Bezzon E, Caumo F (2022) Artifact reduction in contrast-enhanced mammography. Insights Imaging 13:90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01211-w
doi: 10.1186/s13244-022-01211-w
pubmed: 35554734
pmcid: 9098782
van Nijnatten TJA, Morscheid S, Baltzer PAT et al (2024) Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: current status and future challenges. Eur J Radiol 171:111312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111312
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111312
pubmed: 38237520
Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Marshall NW (2023) Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: I. Iodine signal testing. Phys Med Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ad027d
Marshall NW, Cockmartin L, Bosmans H (2023) Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: II. Artefacts/uniformity, exposure time and phantom-based dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ad027f
Klausz R (2018) Introduction of a comprehensive phantom for the quality control of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. ECR 2018 (EPOS). https://epos.myesr.org/poster/esr/ecr2018/C-2650
Dance DR, Young KC (2014) Estimation of mean glandular dose for contrast-enhanced digital mammography: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 59:2127–2137. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/9/2127
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/9/2127
pubmed: 24699200
Gennaro G, Avramova-Cholakova S, Azzalini A et al (2018) Quality controls in digital mammography protocol of the EFOMP Mammo Working group. Phys Med 48:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.03.016
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.03.016
pubmed: 29728229
Gennaro G, Del Genio S, Manco G, Caumo F (2024) Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM. Eur Radiol Exp 8:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00447-z
doi: 10.1186/s41747-024-00447-z
pubmed: 38622388
pmcid: 11018565
Van Engen R, Bosmans H, Bouwman R et al (2018) Protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of digital breast tomosynthesis systems, version 1.03. Berl EUREF (European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services), Njimegen (The Netherlands), pp 1–82. https://euref.org/download-section/physico-technical-protocol/
Ghetti C, Ortenzia O, Pagan L et al (2024) Physical and dosimetric characterisation of different contrast-enhanced digital mammographic systems: a multicentric study. Phys Med 120:103334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103334
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103334
pubmed: 38520889
Grand DJ, Beland M, Dupuy D, Mayo-Smith WW (2009) Contrast-to-noise ratios of liver lesions using subtraction imaging on multiphase 64-detector row CT. Clin Radiol 64:1075–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.03.013
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2009.03.013
pubmed: 19822240
Werncke T, Meine TC, Hinrichs JB et al (2022) Tantalum-specific contrast-to-noise ratio or conventional detector dose-driven exposure control in angiography: radiation dose and image quality evaluation in a porcine model. Eur Radiol Exp 6:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-022-00275-z
doi: 10.1186/s41747-022-00275-z
pubmed: 35578057
pmcid: 9110612