Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec;47(4):1491-1499.
doi: 10.1007/s13246-024-01461-6. Epub 2024 Jul 2.

The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography

J-H Kim  1   2 , M Kessell  3 , D Taylor  3   4   5 , M Hill  6 , J W Burrage  7
Affiliations

The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography

J-H Kim et al. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced mammography is being increasingly implemented clinically, providing much improved contrast between tumour and background structures, particularly in dense breasts. Although CEM is similar to conventional mammography it differs via an additional exposure with high energy X-rays (≥ 40 kVp) and subsequent image subtraction. Because of its special operational aspects, the CEM aspect of a CEM unit needs to be uniquely characterised and evaluated. This study aims to verify the utility of a commercially available phantom set (BR3D model 020 and CESM model 022 phantoms (CIRS, Norfolk, Virginia, USA)) in performing key CEM performance tests (linearity of system response with iodine concentration and background subtraction) on two models of CEM units in a clinical setting. The tests were successfully performed, yielding results similar to previously published studies. Further, similarities and differences in the two systems from different vendors were highlighted, knowledge of which may potentially facilitate optimisation of the systems.

Keywords: Contrast-enhanced mammography; Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography; Phantom; Quality control; System performance; Test object.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Ethical approval: The study did not require ethical approval. Consent to participate: No human beings were participants in this research project. Consent to publish: No human beings were participants in this research project.

References

    1. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast mri, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7(1):18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.09.022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freer PE (2015) Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics 35(2):302–315. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.352140106 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidrich J, Hense HW, Heidinger O (2017) Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur Radiol 27:2744–2751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4636-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Rommens JM, Paterson AD, Minkin S, Yaffe MJ, Stone J, Hopper JL (2009) Mammographic density: a heritable risk factor for breast cancer. Methods Mol Biol 472:343–360 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stomper PC, D’Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA (1996) Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25–79 years old. Am J Roentgenol 167(5):1261–1265 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources