Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Al:

Aluminium

CEDEM:

Contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography

Cu:

Copper

FFDM:

Full-field digital mammography

HE:

High energy

kVp:

Kilovolt peak

LE:

Low energy

MG:

Mammography

Rh:

Rhodium

SdNR:

Signal-difference-to-noise ratio

Ti:

Titanium

W:

Tungsten

References

  1. Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S et al (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 78:112–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Adler G, Garbay JR, Delaloge S (2009) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 69:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F et al (2012) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res BCR 14:R94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229:261–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS et al (2013) Bilateral Contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: Feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 266:743–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F, Muller S, Hamm B, Bick U (2005) Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 40:397–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Diekmann F, Bick U (2007) Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol 17:3086–3092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hörnig MD, Bätz T, Mertelmeier T (2012) Design of a contrast-enhanced dual-energy tomosynthesis system for breast cancer imaging. Proc SPIE 8313, Medical Imaging 2012: Physics of Medical Imaging 8313

  10. Yaffe M (2000) Digital Mammography. In: Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL (eds) Handbook of Medical Imaging. SPIE Press, Bellingham

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T, Hoheisel M (2006) X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. Med Phys 33:4337–4349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Samei E, Saunders RS (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced breast tomosynthesis: optimization of beam quality for dose and image quality. Phys Med Biol 56:6359–6378

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Diekmann F, Sommer A, Lawaczeck R et al (2007) Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents. Invest Radiol 42:319–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carton AK, Gavenonis SC, Currivan JA, Conant EF, Schnall MD, Maidment AD (2010) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis—a feasibility study. Br J Radiol 83:344–350

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Helbich TH (2000) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Eur J Radiol 34:208–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosado-Mendez I, Palma BA, Brandan ME (2008) Analytical optimization of digital subtraction mammography with contrast medium using a commercial unit. Med Phys 35:5544–5557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rueckert D, Sonoda LI, Hayes C, Hill DL, Leach MO, Hawkes DJ (1999) Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 18:712–721

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carton AK, Ullberg C, Lindman K, Acciavatti R, Francke T, Maidment AD (2010) Optimization of a dual-energy contrast-enhanced technique for a photon-counting digital breast tomosynthesis system: I. A theoretical model. Med Phys 37:5896–5907

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Wallis M, Tardivon A, Helbich T, Schreer I, European Society of Breast I (2007) Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures. Eur Radiol 17:581–588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pollard BJ, Samei E, Chawla AS et al (2009) The influence of increased ambient lighting on mass detection in mammograms. Acad Radiol 16:299–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA (2013) ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  22. Skarpathiotakis M, Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK et al (2002) Development of contrast digital mammography. Med Phys 29:2419–2426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leithner R, Knogler T, Homolka P (2013) Development and production of a prototype iodine contrast phantom for CEDEM. Phys Med Biol 58:N25–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S et al (2006) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W528–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantors of this publication are Thomas H. Helbich, MD. and Thomas Knogler, MD. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany, and Bracco, Italy. This study has received funding from: Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany and Bracco, Italy. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Methodology: prospective, experimental, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Thomas Knogler, Georg Langs, Martin Waitzbauer, Katja Pinker-Domenig, Sabine Leitner & Thomas H. Helbich

  2. Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Thomas Knogler, Katja Pinker-Domenig, Sabine Leitner & Thomas H. Helbich

  3. Computational Imaging Research Laboratory, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Georg Langs & Martin Waitzbauer

  4. Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Peter Homolka & Robert Leithner

  5. Siemens AG, Healthcare, X-Ray Products, Allee am Röthelheimpark 2, 91052, Erlangen, Germany

    Mathias Hörnig

Authors
  1. Thomas Knogler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Homolka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathias Hörnig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Leithner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georg Langs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martin Waitzbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Katja Pinker-Domenig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sabine Leitner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Thomas H. Helbich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Knogler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knogler, T., Homolka, P., Hörnig, M. et al. Contrast-enhanced dual energy mammography with a novel anode/filter combination and artifact reduction: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 26, 1575–1581 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4007-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4007-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation