Towards clinical grating-interferometry mammography
Grating-interferometry-based mammography (GIM) might facilitate breast cancer detection, as several research works have demonstrated in a pre-clinical setting, since it is able to provide attenuation, differential phase contrast, and scattering images simultaneously. In order to translate this technique to the clinics, it has to be adapted to cover a large field-of-view within a clinically acceptable exposure time and radiation dose.
We set up a grating interferometer that fits into a standard mammography system and fulfilled the aforementioned conditions. Here, we present the first mastectomy images acquired with this experimental device.
Results and conclusion
Our system performs at a mean glandular dose of 1.6 mGy for a 5-cm-thick, 18%-dense breast, and a field-of-view of 26 × 21 cm2. It seems to be well-suited as basis for a clinical-environment device. Further, dark-field signals seem to support an improved lesion visualization. Evidently, the effective impact of such indications must be evaluated and quantified within the context of a proper reader study.
• Grating-interferometry-based mammography (GIM) might facilitate breast cancer detection, since it is sensitive to refraction and scattering and thus provides additional tissue information.
• The most straightforward way to do grating-interferometry in the clinics is to modify a standard mammography device.
• In a first approximation, the doses given with this technique seem to be similar to those of conventional mammography.
KeywordsMammography Phase contrast Interferometry
Digital breast tomosynthesis
Mean glandular dose
Magnetic resonance imaging
X-ray phase-contrast imaging
The authors thank Gordan Mikuljan for his help during setup commissioning.
This study has received funding by the ERC grant ERC-2012-StG 310005 “PhaseX,” the SNF-Sinergia CRS112-154472 “MedXPhase” and SNF-Sinergia CRSII5_183568 “GI-BCT” grants, and the SNF R’Equip grant 206021_177036 “Displacement Talbot Lithography for micro and nanopatterning.”
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. Marco Stampanoni.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Philips.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
- 1.Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review Lancet 380(9855):1778–1786Google Scholar
- 8.Stampanoni M, Wang Z, Thüring T et al (2011) The first analysis and clinical evaluation of native breast tissue using differential phase-contrast mammography. Invest Radiol 46(12):801–806Google Scholar
- 13.Olivo A, Gkoumas S, Endrizzi M et al (2013) Low-dose phase contrast mammography with conventional X-ray sources. Med Phys 40(9):090701Google Scholar
- 14.Perry N, Broeders M, De Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, Von Karsa L (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, fourth edition, European communitiesGoogle Scholar
- 15.Roessl E, Daerr H, Koehler T, Martens G, van Stevendaal U (2014) Clinical boundary conditions for grating-based differential phase-contrast mammography. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 372:20130033Google Scholar
- 18.Kagias M, Wang Z, Guzenko VA, David C, Stampanoni M, Jefimovs K (2019) Fabrication of Au gratings by seedless electroplating for X-ray grating interferometry. Mater Sci Semicond Process 92:73–79Google Scholar
- 20.Roessl E, Koehler T, van Stevendaal U et al (2012) Image fusion algorithm for differential phase contrast imaging. Proc. SPIE 8313. Medical Imaging 2012: Physics of Medical Imaging 831354Google Scholar
- 22.Scherer K (2016) Microcalcification assessment with dark-field mammography. In: Scherer K (ed) Grating-based X-ray phase-contrast mammography, 77–93, SpringerGoogle Scholar