OBJECTIVE: Through prior monoenergetic modelling, we have identified silver as a potential alternative to iodine in dual-energy (DE) X-ray breast imaging. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of silver and iodine contrast agents in a commercially available DE imaging system through a quantitative analysis of signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR). METHODS: A polyenergetic simulation algorithm was developed to model the signal intensity and noise. The model identified the influence of various technique parameters on SDNR. The model was also used to identify the optimal imaging techniques for silver and iodine, so that the two contrast materials could be objectively compared. RESULTS: The major influences on the SDNR were the low-energy dose fraction and breast thickness. An increase in the value of either of these parameters resulted in a decrease in SDNR. The SDNR for silver was on average 43% higher than that for iodine when imaged at their respective optimal conditions, and 40% higher when both were imaged at the optimal conditions for iodine. CONCLUSION: A silver contrast agent should provide benefit over iodine, even when translated to the clinic without modification of imaging system or protocol. If the system were slightly modified to reflect the lower k-edge of silver, the difference in SDNR between the two materials would be increased. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These data are the first to demonstrate the suitability of silver as a contrast material in a clinical contrast-enhanced DE image acquisition system.
OBJECTIVE: Through prior monoenergetic modelling, we have identified silver as a potential alternative to iodine in dual-energy (DE) X-ray breast imaging. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of silver and iodine contrast agents in a commercially available DE imaging system through a quantitative analysis of signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR). METHODS: A polyenergetic simulation algorithm was developed to model the signal intensity and noise. The model identified the influence of various technique parameters on SDNR. The model was also used to identify the optimal imaging techniques for silver and iodine, so that the two contrast materials could be objectively compared. RESULTS: The major influences on the SDNR were the low-energy dose fraction and breast thickness. An increase in the value of either of these parameters resulted in a decrease in SDNR. The SDNR for silver was on average 43% higher than that for iodine when imaged at their respective optimal conditions, and 40% higher when both were imaged at the optimal conditions for iodine. CONCLUSION: A silver contrast agent should provide benefit over iodine, even when translated to the clinic without modification of imaging system or protocol. If the system were slightly modified to reflect the lower k-edge of silver, the difference in SDNR between the two materials would be increased. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These data are the first to demonstrate the suitability of silver as a contrast material in a clinical contrast-enhanced DE image acquisition system.
Authors: Sara C Chen; Ann-Katherine Carton; Michael Albert; Emily F Conant; Mitchell D Schnall; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Ann-Katherine Carton; Christer Ullberg; Karin Lindman; Raymond Acciavatti; Tom Francke; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Vera Froeling; Felix Diekmann; Diane M Renz; Eva M Fallenberg; Ingo G Steffen; Susanne Diekmann; Rüdiger Lawaczeck; Florian F Schmitzberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Roshan Karunamuni; Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Ajlan Al-Zaki; Anatoliy V Popov; Edward J Delikatny; Andrew Tsourkas; David P Cormode; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jessica C Hsu; Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Peter Chhour; Renee Hastings; Brianna F Moon; Joel M Stein; Walter R T Witschey; Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Jessica C Hsu; Maryam Hajfathalian; Shaameen Mian; Peter Chhour; Lahari Uppuluri; Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Jessica C Hsu; Lenitza M Nieves; Oshra Betzer; Tamar Sadan; Peter B Noël; Rachela Popovtzer; David P Cormode Journal: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol Date: 2020-05-22
Authors: Lenitza M Nieves; Katherine Mossburg; Jessica C Hsu; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Benjamin M Yeh; Paul F FitzGerald; Peter M Edic; Jack W Lambert; Robert E Colborn; Michael E Marino; Paul M Evans; Jeannette C Roberts; Zhen J Wang; Margaret J Wong; Peter J Bonitatibus Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Jing Zou; Markus Hannula; Superb Misra; Hao Feng; Roberto Hanoi Labrador; Antti S Aula; Jari Hyttinen; Ilmari Pyykkö Journal: J Nanobiotechnology Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 10.435