Literature DB >> 26373754

Contrast-enhanced dual energy mammography with a novel anode/filter combination and artifact reduction: a feasibility study.

Thomas Knogler1,2, Peter Homolka3, Mathias Hörnig4, Robert Leithner3, Georg Langs5,6, Martin Waitzbauer5,6, Katja Pinker-Domenig5,7, Sabine Leitner5,7, Thomas H Helbich5,7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the feasibility of contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography (CEDEM) using titanium (Ti) filtering at 49 kVp for high-energy images and a novel artefact reducing image-subtraction post-processing algorithm.
METHODS: Fifteen patients with suspicious findings (ACR BI-RADS 4 and 5) detected with digital mammography (MG) that required biopsy were included. CEDEM examinations were performed on a modified prototype machine. Acquired HE and low-energy raw data images were registered non-rigidly to compensate for possible subtle tissue motion. Subtracted CEDEM images were generated via weighted subtraction, using a fully automatic, locally adjusted tissue thickness-dependent subtraction factor to avoid over-subtraction at the breast border. Two observers evaluated the MG and CEDEM images according to ACR BI-RADS in two reading sessions. Results were correlated with histopathology.
RESULTS: Seven patients with benign and eight with malignant findings were included. All malignant lesions showed a strong contrast enhancement. BI-RADS assessment was altered in 66.6 % through the addition of CEDEM, resulting in increased overall accuracy. With CEDEM, additional lesions were depicted and false-positive rate was reduced compared to MG.
CONCLUSIONS: CEDEM using Ti filtering with 49 kVp for HE exposures is feasible in a clinical setting. The proposed image-processing algorithm has the potential to reduce artefacts and improve CEDEM images. KEY POINTS: • CEDEM with a titanium filter is feasible in a clinical setting. • Breast thickness-dependent image subtraction has the potential to improve CEDEM images. • The proposed image-processing algorithm reduces artefacts.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Contrast agent; Contrast-enhanced digital mammography; Digital mammography; Image processing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26373754     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4007-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  21 in total

1.  Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images.

Authors:  D Rueckert; L I Sonoda; C Hayes; D L Hill; M O Leach; D J Hawkes
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.

Authors:  Philipp Bernhardt; Thomas Mertelmeier; Martin Hoheisel
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced breast tomosynthesis: optimization of beam quality for dose and image quality.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Robert S Saunders
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Optimization of a dual-energy contrast-enhanced technique for a photon-counting digital breast tomosynthesis system: I. A theoretical model.

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

5.  Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Martin Freyer; Susanne Diekmann; Eva M Fallenberg; Thomas Fischer; Ulrich Bick; Alexander Pöllinger
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-11-19       Impact factor: 3.528

6.  Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience.

Authors:  Roberta A Jong; Martin J Yaffe; Mia Skarpathiotakis; Rene S Shumak; Nathalie M Danjoux; Anoma Gunesekara; Donald B Plewes
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-07-24       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Contrast-enhanced digital mammography.

Authors:  Clarisse Dromain; Corinne Balleyguier; Ghazal Adler; Jean Remi Garbay; Suzette Delaloge
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  The influence of increased ambient lighting on mass detection in mammograms.

Authors:  Benjamin J Pollard; Ehsan Samei; Amarpreet S Chawla; Jay Baker; Sujata Ghate; Connie Kim; Mary S Soo; Noriyuki Hashimoto
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  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

Review 10.  Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures.

Authors:  Matthew Wallis; Anne Tardivon; Anne Tarvidon; Thomas Helbich; Ingrid Schreer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.034

View more
  7 in total

1.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.

Authors:  Eva M Fallenberg; Florian F Schmitzberger; Heba Amer; Barbara Ingold-Heppner; Corinne Balleyguier; Felix Diekmann; Florian Engelken; Ritse M Mann; Diane M Renz; Ulrich Bick; Bernd Hamm; Clarisse Dromain
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  Application of BI-RADS Descriptors in Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography: Comparison with MRI.

Authors:  Thomas Knogler; Peter Homolka; Mathias Hoernig; Robert Leithner; Georg Langs; Martin Waitzbauer; Katja Pinker; Sabine Leitner; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Eva M Fallenberg; Paola Clauser; Rubina M Trimboli; Julia Camps-Herrero; Thomas H Helbich; Gabor Forrai
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2016-11-16

5.  Artifact reduction in contrast-enhanced mammography.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Enrica Baldan; Elisabetta Bezzon; Francesca Caumo
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-05-13

6.  Identifying factors that may influence the classification performance of radiomics models using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images.

Authors:  Yuqi Sun; Simin Wang; Ziang Liu; Chao You; Ruimin Li; Ning Mao; Shaofeng Duan; Henry S Lynn; Yajia Gu
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 5.605

7.  Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Pascal A T Baltzer; Panagiotis Kapetas; Mathias Hoernig; Michael Weber; Federica Leone; Maria Bernathova; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 4.813

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.