Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=24877819
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\24877819
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 Med+Phys
2014 ; 41
(6
): 061908
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Task-based strategy for optimized contrast enhanced breast imaging: analysis of
six imaging techniques for mammography and tomosynthesis
#MMPMID24877819
Ikejimba LC
; Kiarashi N
; Ghate SV
; Samei E
; Lo JY
Med Phys
2014[Jun]; 41
(6
): 061908
PMID24877819
show ga
PURPOSE: The use of contrast agents in breast imaging has the capability of
enhancing nodule detectability and providing physiological information.
Accordingly, there has been a growing trend toward using iodine as a contrast
medium in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).
Widespread use raises concerns about the best way to use iodine in DM and DBT,
and thus a comparison is necessary to evaluate typical iodine-enhanced imaging
methods. This study used a task-based observer model to determine the optimal
imaging approach by analyzing six imaging paradigms in terms of their ability to
resolve iodine at a given dose: unsubtracted mammography and tomosynthesis,
temporal subtraction mammography and tomosynthesis, and dual energy subtraction
mammography and tomosynthesis. METHODS: Imaging performance was characterized
using a detectability index d', derived from the system task transfer function
(TTF), an imaging task, iodine signal difference, and the noise power spectrum
(NPS). The task modeled a 10 mm diameter lesion containing iodine concentrations
between 2.1 mg/cc and 8.6 mg/cc. TTF was obtained using an edge phantom, and the
NPS was measured over several exposure levels, energies, and target-?lter
combinations. Using a structured CIRS phantom, d' was generated as a function of
dose and iodine concentration. RESULTS: For all iodine concentrations and dose,
temporal subtraction techniques for mammography and tomosynthesis yielded the
highest d', while dual energy techniques for both modalities demonstrated the
next best performance. Unsubtracted imaging resulted in the lowest d' values for
both modalities, with unsubtracted mammography performing the worst out of all
six paradigms. CONCLUSIONS: At any dose, temporal subtraction imaging provides
the greatest detectability, with temporally subtracted DBT performing the
highest. The authors attribute the successful performance to excellent
cancellation of inplane structures and improved signal difference in the lesion.