Contrast-enhanced mammography for screening recalls: a problem-solving assessment tool ready for use?

Skaane, Per

doi:10.1007/s00330-022-09094-7

Eur Radiol

2022

DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09094-7

|View full text |Cite

Contrast-enhanced mammography for screening recalls: a problem-solving assessment tool ready for use?

Per Skaane

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2023

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, CESM could be considered as an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that is easier to perform in daily clinical practice due to its costs and better compliance from patients. Its main indication would be the assessment of screening recalls, but the correlation with DM is mandatory if used as a single-assessment tool [ 11 ]. Further studies, more evidence-based interpretation guidelines for benign–malignant criteria, and AI-based CAD technology might increase the usage of CESM as an important primary imaging tool in the assessment for screening recalls [ 12 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mammography in Breast Disease Screening and Diagnosis

Tari¹,

Pinto²

2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mammography in Breast Disease Screening and Diagnosis

Tari¹,

Pinto²

2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Performance of dual-energy subtraction in contrast-enhanced mammography for three different manufacturers: a phantom study

Gennaro,

Vatteroni,

Bernardi

et al. 2024

Eur Radiol Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dual-energy subtraction (DES) imaging is critical in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), as the recombination of low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) images produces contrast enhancement while reducing anatomical noise. The study's purpose was to compare the performance of the DES algorithm among three different CEM systems using a commercial phantom. Methods A CIRS Model 022 phantom, designed for CEM, was acquired using all available automatic exposure modes (AECs) with three CEM systems from three different manufacturers (CEM1, CEM2, and CEM3). Three studies were acquired for each system/AEC mode to measure both radiation dose and image quality metrics, including estimation of measurement error. The mean glandular dose (MGD) calculated over the three acquisitions was used as the dosimetry index, while contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was obtained from LE and HE images and DES images and used as an image quality metric. Results On average, the CNR of LE images of CEM1 was 2.3 times higher than that of CEM2 and 2.7 times higher than that of CEM3. For HE images, the CNR of CEM1 was 2.7 and 3.5 times higher than that of CEM2 and CEM3, respectively. The CNR remained predominantly higher for CEM1 even when measured from DES images, followed by CEM2 and then CEM3. CEM1 delivered the lowest MGD (2.34 ± 0.03 mGy), followed by CEM3 (2.53 ± 0.02 mGy) in default AEC mode, and CEM2 (3.50 ± 0.05 mGy). The doses of CEM2 and CEM3 increased by 49.6% and 8.0% compared with CEM1, respectively. Conclusion One system outperformed others in DES algorithms, providing higher CNR at lower doses. Relevance statement This phantom study highlighted the variability in performance among the DES algorithms used by different CEM systems, showing that these differences can be translated in terms of variations in contrast enhancement and radiation dose. Key Points DES images, obtained by recombining LE and HE images, have a major role in CEM. Differences in radiation dose among CEM systems were between 8.0% and 49.6%. One DES algorithm achieved superior technical performance, providing higher CNR values at a lower radiation dose. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Contrast-enhanced mammography for screening recalls: a problem-solving assessment tool ready for use?

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Mammography in Breast Disease Screening and Diagnosis

Mammography in Breast Disease Screening and Diagnosis

Performance of dual-energy subtraction in contrast-enhanced mammography for three different manufacturers: a phantom study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About