Literature DB >> 26897335

Challenges in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography interpretation: artefacts lexicon.

Y Yagil1, A Shalmon1, A Rundstein1, Y Servadio1, O Halshtok1, M Gotlieb1, M Sklair-Levy2.   

Abstract

AIM: To review and describe commonly encountered artefacts in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). MATERIALS &
METHODS: This retrospective study included 200 women who underwent CESM examinations for screening and diagnostic purposes. Analysis was performed on the image data sets of these women, comprising of a total of 774 subtracted images. Images were reviewed with focus on the presence of four artefacts: rim ("breast within breast"), ripple (black and white lines), axillary line, and skin-line enhancement (skin-line highlighting). Statistical cross-correlation and association with acquisition parameters (tube current, tube voltage, compression force, breast thickness, paddle size) was compared using Fisher's exact test and t-test.
RESULTS: The rim artefact was highly common (97-99%) in every projection. The ripple artefact was increasingly more common on the oblique projections (80-82%) and found to be associated with higher breast thickness values. The axillary line artefact was detected only on oblique projections (63%) and associated with the use of a small compression paddle. The skin-line enhancement artefact was seen in 19-46% of projections. None of the artefacts interfered with image interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS: Two main artefacts commonly seen on CESM are rim and ripple artefacts. They do not hamper with image interpretation. It is important to be aware of them and prevent misinterpretation of these artefacts as real breast pathology.
Copyright © 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26897335     DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.01.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  5 in total

Review 1.  Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Julie Sogani; Victoria L Mango; Delia Keating; Janice S Sung; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 2.  Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art.

Authors:  Maxine S Jochelson; Marc B I Lobbes
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Artefacts in contrast enhanced digital mammography: how can they affect diagnostic image quality and confuse clinical diagnosis?

Authors:  Jacopo Nori; Maninderpal Kaur Gill; Chiara Vignoli; Giulia Bicchierai; Diego De Benedetto; Federica Di Naro; Ermanno Vanzi; Cecilia Boeri; Vittorio Miele
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2020-02-07

4.  Artifact reduction in contrast-enhanced mammography.

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

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.