Background enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): are there qualitative and quantitative differences between imaging systems?
Creators
- 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tuebingen (Germany)
Description
To evaluate the impact of the digital mammography imaging system on overall background enhancement on recombined contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images, the overall background enhancement of two different mammography systems was compared. In a retrospective single-center study, CESM images of n = 129 female patients who underwent CESM between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed independently by two radiologists. Two mammography machines of different manufacturers were compared qualitatively using a Likert-scale from 1 (minimal) to 4 (marked overall background enhancement) and quantitatively by placing a region of interest and measuring the intensity enhancement. Lesion conspicuity was analyzed using a Likert-scale from 1 (lesion not reliably distinguishable) to 5 (excellent lesion conspicuity). A multivariate regression was performed to test for potential biases on the quantitative results. Significant differences in qualitative background enhancement measurements between machines A and B were observed for both readers (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). The quantitative evaluation showed significant differences in background enhancement with an average difference of 75.69 (99%-CI [74.37, 77.02]; p < 0.001). Lesion conspicuity was better for machine A for the first and second reader respectively (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001). The factor machine was the only influencing factor (p < 0.001). The factors contrast agent, breast density, age, and menstrual cycle could be excluded as potential biases. Mammography machines seem to significantly influence overall background enhancement qualitatively and quantitatively; thus, an impact on diagnostic accuracy appears possible. Overall background enhancement on CESM differs between different vendors qualitatively and quantitatively. Our retrospective single-center study showed consistent results of the qualitative and quantitative data analysis of overall background enhancement. Lesion conspicuity is higher in cases of lower background enhancement on CESM.
Availability note (English)
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09238-9Additional details
Identifiers
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- European Radiology (Internet)
- Journal Volume
- 33
- Journal Issue
- 4
- Journal Page Range
- p. 2945-2953
- ISSN
- 1432-1084
- CODEN
- EURAE3
INIS
- Country of Publication
- Germany
- Country of Input or Organization
- Germany
- INIS RN
- 54047610
- Subject category
- S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- ACCURACY; AGE DEPENDENCE; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DATA COMPILATION; DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE SCANNERS; MAMMARY GLANDS; MENSTRUAL CYCLE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NMR IMAGING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS
- Descriptors DEC
- BODY; DATA; DATA PROCESSING; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; EVALUATION; GLANDS; INFORMATION; MATHEMATICS; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; PROCESSING; RADIOLOGY; STATISTICS