三家不同制造商在对比增强乳腺 X 射线摄影中的双能量减影性能:一项模型研究。

IF 3.7 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Gisella Gennaro, Giulia Vatteroni, Daniela Bernardi, Francesca Caumo
{"title":"三家不同制造商在对比增强乳腺 X 射线摄影中的双能量减影性能:一项模型研究。","authors":"Gisella Gennaro, Giulia Vatteroni, Daniela Bernardi, Francesca Caumo","doi":"10.1186/s41747-024-00516-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>One system outperformed others in DES algorithms, providing higher CNR at lower doses.</p><p><strong>Relevance statement: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36926,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology Experimental","volume":"8 1","pages":"113"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473475/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of dual-energy subtraction in contrast-enhanced mammography for three different manufacturers: a phantom study.\",\"authors\":\"Gisella Gennaro, Giulia Vatteroni, Daniela Bernardi, Francesca Caumo\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41747-024-00516-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>One system outperformed others in DES algorithms, providing higher CNR at lower doses.</p><p><strong>Relevance statement: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology Experimental\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473475/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology Experimental\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00516-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00516-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:双能量减影(DES)成像在对比增强乳腺X光摄影术(CEM)中至关重要,因为低能量(LE)和高能量(HE)图像的重组可增强对比度,同时减少解剖噪音。本研究的目的是使用商用模型比较 DES 算法在三种不同 CEM 系统中的性能:方法:使用三个不同制造商生产的三种 CEM 系统(CEM1、CEM2 和 CEM3),使用所有可用的自动曝光模式 (AEC) 采集专为 CEM 设计的 CIRS 022 型模型。每种系统/自动曝光模式都采集了三项研究,以测量辐射剂量和图像质量指标,包括测量误差的估计。在三次采集中计算出的平均腺体剂量(MGD)被用作剂量测定指标,而对比噪声比(CNR)则从LE和HE图像以及DES图像中获得,并被用作图像质量指标:平均而言,CEM1 的 LE 图像的 CNR 是 CEM2 的 2.3 倍,是 CEM3 的 2.7 倍。在 HE 图像中,CEM1 的 CNR 分别是 CEM2 和 CEM3 的 2.7 倍和 3.5 倍。即使从 DES 图像中测量,CEM1 的 CNR 仍主要较高,其次是 CEM2,然后是 CEM3。CEM1 的 MGD 最低(2.34 ± 0.03 mGy),其次是默认 AEC 模式下的 CEM3(2.53 ± 0.02 mGy)和 CEM2(3.50 ± 0.05 mGy)。与 CEM1 相比,CEM2 和 CEM3 的剂量分别增加了 49.6% 和 8.0%:结论:在 DES 算法中,一种系统的表现优于其他系统,能以较低的剂量提供较高的 CNR:这项模型研究强调了不同CEM系统所使用的DES算法之间的性能差异,表明这些差异可以转化为对比度增强和辐射剂量的变化:要点:通过重组 LE 和 HE 图像获得的 DES 图像在 CEM 中发挥着重要作用。CEM系统之间的辐射剂量差异在8.0%到49.6%之间。一种 DES 算法实现了卓越的技术性能,以较低的辐射剂量提供了较高的 CNR 值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance of dual-energy subtraction in contrast-enhanced mammography for three different manufacturers: a phantom study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology Experimental
European Radiology Experimental Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
56
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信