Literature DB >> 27765597

Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography: Modality-Specific Artifacts and Other Factors Which May Interfere with Image Quality.

Chandni Bhimani1, Luna Li2, Lydia Liao2, Robyn G Roth2, Elizabeth Tinney2, Pauline Germaine2.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) uses full field digital mammography with the added benefit of intravenous contrast administration to significantly reduce false-positive and false-negative results and improve specificity while maintaining high sensitivity. For CESM to fulfill its purpose, one should be aware of possible artifacts and other factors which may interfere with image quality, and attention should be taken to minimize these factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pictorial demonstration will depict types of artifacts detected and other factors that interfere with image acquisition in our practice since CESM implementation.
RESULTS: Many of the artifacts and other factors we have encountered while using CESM have simple solutions to resolve them.
CONCLUSION: The illustrated artifacts and other factors interfering with image quality will serve as a useful reference to anyone using CESM. Copyright Â
© 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  CESM; artifacts; breast cancer; contrast-enhanced spectral mammography

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27765597     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  6 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

2.  Which clinical, radiological, histological, and molecular parameters are associated with the absence of enhancement of known breast cancers with Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)?

Authors:  Giulia Bicchierai; Francesco Amato; Bianca Vanzi; Diego De Benedetto; Cecilia Boeri; Ermanno Vanzi; Federica Di Naro; Simonetta Bianchi; Donatello Cirone; Diletta Cozzi; Vittorio Miele; Jacopo Nori
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 4.380

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

Review 6.  How Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Can Provide Useful Clinical Information About Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature.

Authors:  Federica Vasselli; Alessandra Fabi; Francesca Romana Ferranti; Maddalena Barba; Claudio Botti; Antonello Vidiri; Silvia Tommasin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 5.738

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.