Literature DB >> 26158058

Optimization of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography depending on clinical indication.

Clarisse Dromain1, Sandra Canale1, Sylvie Saab-Puong2, Ann-Katherine Carton2, Serge Muller2, Eva Maria Fallenberg3.   

Abstract

The objective is to optimize low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) exposure parameters of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) examinations in four different clinical applications for which different levels of average glandular dose (AGD) and ratios between LE and total doses are required. The optimization was performed on a Senographe DS with a SenoBright® upgrade. Simulations were performed to find the optima by maximizing the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) on the recombined CESM image using different targeted doses and LE image quality. The linearity between iodine concentration and CNR as well as the minimal detectable iodine concentration was assessed. The image quality of the LE image was assessed on the CDMAM contrast-detail phantom. Experiments confirmed the optima found on simulation. The CNR was higher for each clinical indication than for SenoBright®, including the screening indication for which the total AGD was 22% lower. Minimal iodine concentrations detectable in the case of a 3-mm-diameter round tumor were 12.5% lower than those obtained for the same dose in the clinical routine. LE image quality satisfied EUREF acceptable limits for threshold contrast. This newly optimized set of acquisition parameters allows increased contrast detectability compared to parameters currently used without a significant loss in LE image quality.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast; cancer; contrast media; dual energy; spectral mammography

Year:  2014        PMID: 26158058      PMCID: PMC4478839          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.1.3.033506

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  20 in total

1.  Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary X-ray spectra in mammography: computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data.

Authors:  John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography.

Authors:  X Wu; G T Barnes; D M Tucker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.

Authors:  R Klausz; N Shramchenko
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  Estimation of compressed breast thickness during mammography.

Authors:  R P Highnam; J M Brady; B J Shepstone
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Computation of bremsstrahlung X-ray spectra and comparison with spectra measured with a Ge(Li) detector.

Authors:  R Birch; M Marshall
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Quality analysis of DSA equipment.

Authors:  M A Thijssen; H O Thijssen; J L Merx; M P van Woensel
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.804

7.  Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose.

Authors:  M A Helvie; H P Chan; D D Adler; P G Boyd
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Alexandra S Heerdt; Cynthia Thornton; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jessica Ferrara; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Alexander Sommer; Ruediger Lawaczeck; Susanne Diekmann; Hubertus Pietsch; Ulrich Speck; Bernd Hamm; Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 6.016

View more
  3 in total

1.  Generation and analysis of clinically relevant breast imaging x-ray spectra.

Authors:  Andrew M Hernandez; J Anthony Seibert; Anita Nosratieh; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Screening Women after Breast Conserving Surgery.

Authors:  Jill Gluskin; Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Daly Avendano; Maria Adele Marino; Almir G V Bitencourt; Melissa Pilewskie; Varadan Sevilimedu; Janice S Sung; Katja Pinker; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 6.639

3.  Evaluation of exposure factors of dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography to optimize radiation dose with improved image quality.

Authors:  Sachila Niroshani; Tokiko Nakamura; Nikaidou Michiru; Toru Negishi
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2022-08-11
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.