Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.

This phantom study simulates contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography (CEDM) and compares subtracted image quality and total mean glandular dose for two alternative spectral combinations available in a GE Senographe DS mammography unit. The first choice takes advantage of large iodine attenuation at low photon energies and uses traditionally available spectra (anode/filter combinations Mo/Mo at 25 kV and Rh/Rh at 40 kV, "Mo25-Rh40"). The second choice, selected from a previous analytical optimization, includes harder spectra obtained by adding external filtration to traditional beams (Rh/Rh at 34 kV and Rh/Rh+5 mm of Al at 45 kV, "Rh34-Rh45H"). Individual images of a custom-made phantom containing tubes of various diameters filled with water- or iodine-based contrast agent were acquired with both spectral combinations. The total breast entrance air kerma, considering subtraction of two images, was limited to 8.76 mGy (1 R). The results were compared to predictions obtained through an analytical formalism that assumes noise of stochastic origin. Individual images were evaluated and subtracted under five combinations of temporal and dual-energy modalities. Signal variance analysis in individual raw images showed important contributions of nonstochastic origin, associated with the software applied to raw images, the curved geometry, and strong attenuation of the phantom cylindrical iodine-filled tubes, causing experimental SNR to vary from 2.2 to 0.8 times the predictions from low to high values of SNR. Iodine contrast in the subtracted images was found to be mainly defined by the spectra, independent of exposure, and linearly dependent on the iodine mass thickness. The highest contrast was obtained with the combined dual-energy temporal subtraction with Rh34-Rh45H, its value was 7% larger than the highest value measured with Mo25-Rh40. As expected, temporal modalities (single and dual energy, any spectral choice) led to higher contrast-over-noise ratio (CNR) than nontemporal dual-energy subtraction, the latter being negligibly small with Mo25-Rh40. CNR for 4 mg iodine/cm2 imaged temporally in a dual-energy fashion with Rh34-Rh45H (iodine imaged at high energy) is about 1.7 times the optimum for Mo25-Rh40 (iodine imaged at low energy). Iodine thicknesses needed to fulfill Rose's criterion were 0.78 +/- 0.02 mg iodine/cm2 for Mo25-Rh40 and 0.54 +/- 0.17 mg iodine/cm2 for Rh34-Rh45H, both lower than the proposed biological concentration of iodine in breast tumors after contrast medium administration. Although similar dose levels were obtained with both spectral choices under dual-energy (temporal and nontemporal) subtraction, the dose obtained in single-energy temporal subtraction with the Mo25 spectrum was 1.2 mGy lower than the dose from the modality offering the highest CNR. In all results considered, the spectral choice Mo25-Rh40 was found to represent an interesting alternative to the use of high-energy hardened spectra for CEDM, particularly when performing dynamic studies of the contrast-agent uptake in breast lesions.

[1]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography , 2007, European Radiology.

[2]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  L T Niklason,et al.  Digital breast imaging: tomosynthesis and digital subtraction mammography. , 1998, Breast disease.

[4]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector. , 2009, Medical physics.

[5]  John M Lewin,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. , 2003, Radiology.

[6]  Serge Muller,et al.  Digital Mammography Using Iodine-Based Contrast Media: Initial Clinical Experience With Dynamic Contrast Medium Enhancement , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[7]  A. Rose,et al.  Vision: human and electronic , 1973 .

[8]  G Belli,et al.  Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography. , 2007, Medical physics.

[9]  Serge Muller,et al.  Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Jeffrey H Siewerdsen,et al.  Cascaded systems analysis of noise reduction algorithms in dual-energy imaging. , 2008, Medical physics.

[11]  J. Boone Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary X-ray spectra in mammography: computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data. , 2002, Medical physics.

[12]  G. Barnes,et al.  Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. , 1994, Radiology.

[13]  Margarita Chevalier,et al.  Patient dose in digital mammography. , 2004, Medical physics.

[14]  S. Kappadath,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Optimization of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[17]  Serge Muller,et al.  Development of contrast digital mammography. , 2002, Medical physics.

[18]  Xinming Liu,et al.  A dual-energy subtraction technique for microcalcification imaging in digital mammography--a signal-to-noise analysis. , 2002, Medical physics.

[19]  A Fenster,et al.  A spatial-frequency dependent quantum accounting diagram and detective quantum efficiency model of signal and noise propagation in cascaded imaging systems. , 1994, Medical physics.

[20]  Martin J Yaffe,et al.  Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. , 2003, Radiology.

[21]  T. R. Fewell,et al.  Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. , 1997, Medical physics.

[22]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Dual-energy subtraction for contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[23]  Chris C Shaw,et al.  Dual-energy digital mammography: calibration and inverse-mapping techniques to estimate calcification thickness and glandular-tissue ratio. , 2003, Medical physics.

[24]  Alberto Bravin,et al.  Evaluation of the minimum iodine concentration for contrast-enhanced subtraction mammography , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  J M Boone,et al.  Scatter/primary in mammography: Monte Carlo validation. , 2000, Medical physics.

[26]  U Bick,et al.  Use of Iodine-based Contrast Media in Digital Full-field Mammography - Initial Experience , 2003, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[27]  Thomas K Nishino,et al.  Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  Frank Herbert Attix,et al.  Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry: Attix/Introduction , 2007 .

[29]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Temporal Subtraction Versus Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Pilot Study , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[30]  Raffaella Rossi,et al.  Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors. , 2008, Medical physics.

[31]  Chris C Shaw,et al.  Dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging: scatter and nonuniformity corrections. , 2005, Medical physics.

[32]  Michael Sandborg,et al.  A search for optimal x-ray spectra in iodine contrast media mammography. , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[33]  Remy Klausz,et al.  Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography. , 2007, Medical physics.

[34]  R. Close,et al.  Regularization method for scatter-glare correction in fluoroscopic images. , 1999, Medical physics.

[35]  R Fahrig,et al.  Optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography: dependence on anode material, breast thickness, and lesion type. , 1994, Medical physics.

[36]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Quantification for contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[37]  I Rosado-Méndez,et al.  Analytical optimization of digital subtraction mammography with contrast medium using a commercial unit. , 2008, Medical physics.

[38]  G. Barnes,et al.  Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. , 1991, Radiology.

[39]  Arthur Burgess On the noise variance of a digital mammography system. , 2004, Medical physics.

[40]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Optimization of dual-energy imaging systems using generalized NEQ and imaging task. , 2006, Medical physics.